Florida Statute 766.106 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XLV
TORTS

Chapter 766
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND RELATED MATTERS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 766.106

766.106 Notice before filing action for medical negligence; presuit screening period; offers for admission of liability and for arbitration; informal discovery; review.—

(1) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Claim for medical negligence” or “claim for medical malpractice” means a claim, arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services.

(b) “Self-insurer” means any self-insurer authorized under s. 627.357 or any uninsured prospective defendant.

(2) PRESUIT NOTICE.—

(a) After completion of presuit investigation pursuant to s. 766.203(2) and before filing a complaint for medical negligence, a claimant shall notify each prospective defendant of intent to initiate litigation for medical negligence by at least one of the following verifiable means:

1. United States Postal Service certified mail, return receipt requested;

2. United States Postal Service mail with a tracking number;

3. An interstate commercial mail carrier or delivery service; or

4. Any person authorized by law to serve process.

(b)1. Proof of service made pursuant to this subsection and delivered to an address on file with the Department of Health, the Secretary of State, or the Agency for Health Care Administration creates a rebuttable presumption that service was received by the prospective defendant.

2. If service is challenged during subsequent litigation, the court must conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the prospective defendant or a person legally related to the prospective defendant was provided notice pursuant to this subsection and, if so, the date of such service. If service is challenged under this subparagraph, it must be challenged in the first response to the complaint, and if:

a. The court determines that service was properly made at the prospective defendant’s address as listed on the state licensing agency website or an address on file with the Secretary of State; and

b. The prospective defendant proves by the greater weight of the evidence that neither the prospective defendant nor a person legally related to the prospective defendant at the time of service knew or should have known of the service,

the court must stay the case for a presuit investigation period pursuant to this section, and the statute of limitations and statute of repose must be tolled from the time service was properly made at the prospective defendant’s address as listed on the state licensing agency website or an address on file with the Secretary of State. The tolling shall end at the conclusion of the presuit investigation period provided for in this subsection, and the stay of litigation shall automatically end at the conclusion of the presuit investigation period.

(c) Notice to each prospective defendant must include, if available, a list of all known health care providers seen by the claimant for the injuries complained of subsequent to the alleged act of negligence, all known health care providers during the 2-year period before the alleged act of negligence who treated or evaluated the claimant, copies of all of the medical records relied upon by the expert in signing the affidavit, and the executed authorization form provided in s. 766.1065.

(d) Following the initiation of a suit alleging medical negligence with a court of competent jurisdiction, and service of the complaint upon a prospective defendant, the claimant shall provide a copy of the complaint to the Department of Health and, if the complaint involves a facility licensed under chapter 395, the Agency for Health Care Administration. The requirement of providing the complaint to the Department of Health or the Agency for Health Care Administration does not impair the claimant’s legal rights or ability to seek relief for his or her claim. The Department of Health or the Agency for Health Care Administration shall review each incident that is the subject of the complaint and determine whether it involved conduct by a licensee which is potentially subject to disciplinary action, in which case, for a licensed health care practitioner, s. 456.073 applies and, for a licensed facility, part I of chapter 395 applies.

(3) PRESUIT INVESTIGATION BY PROSPECTIVE DEFENDANT.—

(a) A suit may not be filed for a period of 90 days after notice is delivered to any prospective defendant. During the 90-day period, the prospective defendant or the prospective defendant’s insurer or self-insurer shall conduct a review as provided in s. 766.203(3) to determine the liability of the prospective defendant. Each insurer or self-insurer shall have a procedure for the prompt investigation, review, and evaluation of claims during the 90-day period. This procedure must include one or more of the following:

1. Internal review by a duly qualified claims adjuster;

2. Creation of a panel comprised of an attorney knowledgeable in the prosecution or defense of medical negligence actions, a health care provider trained in the same or similar medical specialty as the prospective defendant, and a duly qualified claims adjuster;

3. A contractual agreement with a state or local professional society of health care providers, which maintains a medical review committee; or

4. Any other similar procedure which fairly and promptly evaluates the pending claim.

Each insurer or self-insurer shall investigate the claim in good faith, and both the claimant and prospective defendant shall cooperate with the insurer in good faith. If the insurer requires, a claimant must appear before a pretrial screening panel or before a medical review committee and shall submit to a physical examination, if required. Unreasonable failure of any party to comply with this section justifies dismissal of claims or defenses. There shall be no civil liability for participation in a pretrial screening procedure if done without intentional fraud.

(b) At or before the end of the 90 days, the prospective defendant or the prospective defendant’s insurer or self-insurer shall provide the claimant with a response:

1. Rejecting the claim;

2. Making a settlement offer; or

3. Making an offer to arbitrate in which liability is deemed admitted and arbitration will be held only on the issue of damages. This offer may be made contingent upon a limit of general damages.

(c) The response shall be delivered to the claimant if not represented by counsel or to the claimant’s attorney, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Failure of the prospective defendant or insurer or self-insurer to reply to the notice within 90 days after receipt shall be deemed a final rejection of the claim for purposes of this section.

(d) Within 30 days of receipt of a response by a prospective defendant, insurer, or self-insurer to a claimant represented by an attorney, the attorney shall advise the claimant in writing of the response, including:

1. The exact nature of the response under paragraph (b).

2. The exact terms of any settlement offer, or admission of liability and offer of arbitration on damages.

3. The legal and financial consequences of acceptance or rejection of any settlement offer, or admission of liability, including the provisions of this section.

4. An evaluation of the time and likelihood of ultimate success at trial on the merits of the claimant’s action.

5. An estimation of the costs and attorney’s fees of proceeding through trial.

(4) SERVICE OF PRESUIT NOTICE AND TOLLING.—The notice of intent to initiate litigation must be served within the time limits set forth in s. 95.11. However, upon mailing of the notice of intent to initiate litigation, as provided in subparagraph (2)(a)1., subparagraph (2)(a)2., or subparagraph (2)(a)3., and during the 90-day period provided in subsection (3), the statute of limitations is tolled as to all prospective defendants. If the notice of intent to initiate litigation is served by a process server as provided in subparagraph (2)(a)4., the statute of limitations is tolled upon the process server’s first attempt to serve the prospective defendant and continues during the 90-day period as to all prospective defendants. Upon stipulation by the parties, the 90-day period may be extended and the statute of limitations is tolled during any such extension. Upon receiving notice of termination of negotiations in an extended period, the claimant shall have 60 days or the remainder of the period of the statute of limitations, whichever is greater, within which to file suit. As used in this section, the terms “prospective” and “potential” are interchangeable.

(5) DISCOVERY AND ADMISSIBILITY.—A statement, discussion, written document, report, or other work product generated by the presuit screening process is not discoverable or admissible in any civil action for any purpose by the opposing party. All participants, including, but not limited to, physicians, investigators, witnesses, and employees or associates of the defendant, are immune from civil liability arising from participation in the presuit screening process. This subsection does not prevent a physician licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459 or a dentist licensed under chapter 466 who submits a verified written expert medical opinion from being subject to denial of a license or disciplinary action under s. 458.331(1)(oo), s. 459.015(1)(qq), or s. 466.028(1)(ll).

(6) INFORMAL DISCOVERY.—

(a) Upon receipt by a prospective defendant of a notice of claim, the parties shall make discoverable information available without formal discovery. Failure to do so is grounds for dismissal of claims or defenses ultimately asserted.

(b) Informal discovery may be used by a party to obtain unsworn statements, the production of documents or things, and physical and mental examinations, as follows:

1. Unsworn statements.—Any party may require other parties to appear for the taking of an unsworn statement. Such statements may be used only for the purpose of presuit screening and are not discoverable or admissible in any civil action for any purpose by any party. A party desiring to take the unsworn statement of any party must give reasonable notice in writing to all parties. The notice must state the time and place for taking the statement and the name and address of the party to be examined. Unless otherwise impractical, the examination of any party must be done at the same time by all other parties. Any party may be represented by counsel at the taking of an unsworn statement. An unsworn statement may be recorded electronically, stenographically, or on videotape. The taking of unsworn statements is subject to the provisions of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and may be terminated for abuses.

2. Documents or things.—Any party may request discovery of documents or things. The documents or things must be produced, at the expense of the requesting party, within 20 days after the date of receipt of the request. A party is required to produce discoverable documents or things within that party’s possession or control. Medical records shall be produced as provided in s. 766.204.

3. Physical and mental examinations.—A prospective defendant may require an injured claimant to appear for examination by an appropriate health care provider. The prospective defendant shall give reasonable notice in writing to all parties as to the time and place for examination. Unless otherwise impractical, a claimant is required to submit to only one examination on behalf of all potential defendants. The practicality of a single examination must be determined by the nature of the claimant’s condition, as it relates to the liability of each prospective defendant. Such examination report is available to the parties and their attorneys upon payment of the reasonable cost of reproduction and may be used only for the purpose of presuit screening. Otherwise, such examination report is confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.

4. Written questions.—Any party may request answers to written questions, the number of which may not exceed 30, including subparts. A response must be made within 20 days after receipt of the questions.

5. Interviews of treating health care providers.—A prospective defendant or his or her legal representative may interview the claimant’s treating health care providers consistent with the authorization for release of protected health information. This subparagraph does not require a claimant’s treating health care provider to submit to a request for an interview. Notice of the intent to conduct an interview shall be provided to the claimant or the claimant’s legal representative, who shall be responsible for arranging a mutually convenient date, time, and location for the interview within 15 days after the request is made. For subsequent interviews, the prospective defendant or his or her representative shall notify the claimant and his or her legal representative at least 72 hours before the subsequent interview. If the claimant’s attorney fails to schedule an interview, the prospective defendant or his or her legal representative may attempt to conduct an interview without further notice to the claimant or the claimant’s legal representative.

6. Unsworn statements of treating health care providers.—A prospective defendant or his or her legal representative may also take unsworn statements of the claimant’s treating health care providers. The statements must be limited to those areas that are potentially relevant to the claim of personal injury or wrongful death. Subject to the procedural requirements of subparagraph 1., a prospective defendant may take unsworn statements from a claimant’s treating physicians. Reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard must be given to the claimant or the claimant’s legal representative before taking unsworn statements. The claimant or claimant’s legal representative has the right to attend the taking of such unsworn statements.

(c) Each request for and notice concerning informal presuit discovery pursuant to this section must be in writing, and a copy thereof must be sent to all parties. Such a request or notice must bear a certificate of service identifying the name and address of the person to whom the request or notice is served, the date of the request or notice, and the manner of service thereof.

(d) Copies of any documents produced in response to the request of any party must be served upon all other parties. The party serving the documents or his or her attorney shall identify, in a notice accompanying the documents, the name and address of the parties to whom the documents were served, the date of service, the manner of service, and the identity of the document served.

(7) SANCTIONS.—Failure to cooperate on the part of any party during the presuit investigation may be grounds to strike any claim made, or defense raised, by such party in suit.

History.—s. 14, ch. 85-175; s. 9, ch. 86-287; s. 3, ch. 88-173; s. 48, ch. 88-277; s. 245, ch. 94-218; s. 1, ch. 94-258; s. 424, ch. 96-406; s. 1800, ch. 97-102; s. 164, ch. 98-166; s. 225, ch. 2000-160; s. 166, ch. 2000-318; s. 1, ch. 2000-341; s. 49, ch. 2003-416; s. 11, ch. 2011-233; s. 3, ch. 2013-108; s. 17, ch. 2022-190.

Note.—Former s. 768.57.

F.S. 766.106 on Google Scholar

F.S. 766.106 on CourtListener

Amendments to 766.106

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 766.106

Total Results: 304

Williams v. Oken

62 So. 3d 1129, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 202, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 1027, 2011 WL 1675242

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 5, 2011 | Docket: 2360888

Cited 130 times | Published

incorrectly found that presuit notice under section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes (2007), was not required);

Charles Barnett v. Okeechobee Hospital

283 F.3d 1232, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 2870, 2002 WL 261950

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Feb 25, 2002 | Docket: 468308

Cited 64 times | Published

“pursuant to the requirements of Florida Statute § 766.106 and Rule 1.650 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure

Kukral v. Mekras

679 So. 2d 278, 1996 WL 316134

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 13, 1996 | Docket: 1665987

Cited 64 times | Published

Statutes (1985), which is currently found at section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes (1995), and noted: "The

Tanner v. Hartog

618 So. 2d 177, 1993 WL 152666

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 13, 1993 | Docket: 98088

Cited 61 times | Published

medical malpractice litigation required by section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1987), was filed on February

Weinstock v. Groth

629 So. 2d 835, 1993 WL 528465

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 23, 1993 | Docket: 372523

Cited 50 times | Published

maintained that Groth failed to comply with section 766.106(2), which requires notice to the defendant

Patry v. Capps

633 So. 2d 9, 1994 WL 70091

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 10, 1994 | Docket: 2484087

Cited 43 times | Published

768.57(2), FLORIDA STATUTES (1987) (CURRENT SECTION 766.106(2), FLORIDA STATUTES (1993)). The Patrys, individually

ECHEVARRIA, McCALLA, RAYMER v. Cole

950 So. 2d 380, 2007 WL 268769

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 1, 2007 | Docket: 2515842

Cited 42 times | Published

in certain types of actions. For example, section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2006), requires a medical

Thompson v. Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC

211 F. Supp. 2d 1345, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10210, 2002 WL 1257767

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Apr 16, 2002 | Docket: 2437549

Cited 42 times | Published

with the pre-suit requirements of Fla. Stat. § 766.106 and § 400.023; and (C) whether Plaintiff Thompson

Jarzynka v. St. Thomas University School of Law

310 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5376, 2004 WL 615642

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 23, 2004 | Docket: 2291722

Cited 40 times | Published

render, medical care or services." Fla. Stat. § 766.106(1)(a) (1999). Mr. Jarzynka's claim in Count 5

Golf Channel v. Jenkins

752 So. 2d 561, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 31, 15 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1574, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 9, 2000 WL 31834

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 13, 2000 | Docket: 1279983

Cited 38 times | Published

60 days' written notice of the violation."); § 766.106(3)(a) (medical malpractice) ("No suit may be filed

SOUTHERN BAPTIST HOSP. OF FLORIDA v. Welker

908 So. 2d 317, 30 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 259, 2005 Fla. LEXIS 690, 2005 WL 851030

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 14, 2005 | Docket: 1397752

Cited 33 times | Published

is subject to the presuit requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1999). I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL

Maggio v. Fla. Dept. of Labor & Emp. SEC.

899 So. 2d 1074, 2005 WL 673677

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 24, 2005 | Docket: 757462

Cited 33 times | Published

with section 768.28(6), despite the fact that section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2004), also provides presuit

Wood v. Fraser

677 So. 2d 15, 1996 WL 324987

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 14, 1996 | Docket: 1993559

Cited 33 times | Published

medical malpractice litigation pursuant to section 766.106(4), Florida Statutes (1993). Because the trial

JB v. Sacred Heart Hosp. of Pensacola

635 So. 2d 945, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 194, 1994 Fla. LEXIS 577, 1994 WL 137919

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 1994 | Docket: 1705398

Cited 33 times | Published

delineating the actions to which it applies, section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1989), defines a "[c]laim

University of Miami v. Echarte

618 So. 2d 189, 1993 WL 152668

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 13, 1993 | Docket: 405771

Cited 33 times | Published

claimant's notice to initiate a malpractice claim. § 766.106(3)(a). Before the defendant may deny the claimant's

Bell v. Indian River Mem. Hosp.

778 So. 2d 1030, 2001 WL 98665

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 7, 2001 | Docket: 1686912

Cited 29 times | Published

by any provider of health care." Similarly, section 766.106(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), which pertains

Stebilla v. Mussallem

595 So. 2d 136, 1992 WL 24470

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 14, 1992 | Docket: 1299226

Cited 27 times | Published

failure of a party to provide discovery [see § 766.106(6)] or a determination of the reasonableness of

Hospital Corp. of America v. Lindberg

571 So. 2d 446, 1990 WL 198320

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 6, 1990 | Docket: 1173581

Cited 27 times | Published

[1] The statute is currently numbered as section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1989). [2] We have jurisdiction

Hankey v. Yarian

755 So. 2d 93, 2000 WL 283692

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 16, 2000 | Docket: 1699332

Cited 25 times | Published

whether the ninety-day "tolling" period under section 766.106(4), Florida Statutes, plus any other extension

Galen of Florida, Inc. v. Braniff

696 So. 2d 308, 1997 WL 213718

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 1, 1997 | Docket: 1696195

Cited 25 times | Published

provision of our present medical malpractice law, section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes (1993), it is provided

Fassy v. Crowley

884 So. 2d 359, 2004 WL 2008478

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 10, 2004 | Docket: 1281861

Cited 22 times | Published

requirements of the Medical Malpractice Act, section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2002), and Florida Rule

NME Properties, Inc. v. McCullough

590 So. 2d 439, 1991 WL 178109

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 13, 1991 | Docket: 1512682

Cited 22 times | Published

itself a "health care provider" for purposes of section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1989). The plaintiff's complaint

Fox v. McCaw Cellular Communications

745 So. 2d 330, 1998 WL 870859

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 9, 1998 | Docket: 1689183

Cited 21 times | Published

expectations of the contracting parties. [7] See, e.g., § 766.106(3), Fla.Stat. (1997) (during 90-day presuit screening

Boyd v. Becker

627 So. 2d 481, 1993 WL 444290

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 4, 1993 | Docket: 1530911

Cited 20 times | Published

medical malpractice action was *482 barred by section 766.106(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), the statute

Mobley v. GILBERT E. HIRSCHBERG, PA

915 So. 2d 217, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 17250, 2005 WL 2861577

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 2, 2005 | Docket: 1310962

Cited 18 times | Published

the medical malpractice presuit procedures. See § 766.106, Fla. Stat. (2004). We reverse because Mobley's

Musculoskeletal Institute v. Parham

745 So. 2d 946

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 11, 1999 | Docket: 352781

Cited 16 times | Published

INTENT TO INITIATE LITIGATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 766.106(4), FLORIDA STATUTES (1989)? For the reasons

Lane v. Calhoun-Liberty County Hosp. Ass'n Inc.

846 F. Supp. 1543, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7969, 1994 WL 96755

District Court, N.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 11, 1994 | Docket: 1276654

Cited 16 times | Published

Florida. Calhoun Hospital argues Fla.Stat.Ann. § 766.106(5) insulates the documents in Plaintiff's exhibit

MIAMI PHYSICAL THERAPY v. Savage

632 So. 2d 114, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 755, 1994 WL 34105

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 8, 1994 | Docket: 2560052

Cited 16 times | Published

for medical malpractice actions required by section 766.106, Florida Statutes. Defendants moved to dismiss

Liles v. PIA Medfield, Inc.

681 So. 2d 711, 1995 WL 642743

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 3, 1995 | Docket: 1722258

Cited 15 times | Published

benefit of the presuit screening requirements of section 766.106(1), Florida Statutes (1989), is whether the

Archer v. Maddux

645 So. 2d 544, 1994 WL 630814

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 14, 1994 | Docket: 1222892

Cited 15 times | Published

compliance with the notice requirements of section 766.106(2), and attached both a corroborating, verified

In Re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases—Report No. 09-01

35 So. 3d 666, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 149, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 302

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 4, 2010 | Docket: 1646266

Cited 14 times | Published

claims for medical malpractice as defined by F.S. 766.106(1) (1989). 2. This instruction is intended to

SHANDS TEACHING HOSP. v. Barber

638 So. 2d 570, 1994 WL 201451

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 25, 1994 | Docket: 1652658

Cited 14 times | Published

comply with presuit notice requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes.

Oliveros v. Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt, Inc.

45 So. 3d 873, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 12923, 2010 WL 3447253

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 3, 2010 | Docket: 2525062

Cited 13 times | Published

two-year statute of limitations for 90 days. See § 766.106(4). Therefore, the statute of limitations expired

South Miami Hospital, Inc. v. Perez

38 So. 3d 809, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 8643, 2010 WL 2382569

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 16, 2010 | Docket: 1658651

Cited 13 times | Published

which include presuit notice as set forth in section 766.106(2)(a), prior to filing the lawsuit. Upon motion

Apostolico v. Orlando Regional Health Care System, Inc.

871 So. 2d 283, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3847, 2004 WL 587660

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 26, 2004 | Docket: 1300574

Cited 13 times | Published

Medical Negligence Litigation in accordance with section 766.106, Florida Statutes. Along with the Notice of

Integrated Health Care Serv., Inc. v. Lang-Redway

840 So. 2d 974, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1030, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 2591, 2002 WL 31769252

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 12, 2002 | Docket: 1748206

Cited 13 times | Published

plaintiff comply with the presuit conditions in section 766.106? Integrated Health Care Services, Inc. v. Lang-Redway

FORT WALTON BEACH MED. CENTER v. Dingler

697 So. 2d 575

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 5, 1997 | Docket: 1776890

Cited 13 times | Published

medical malpractice litigation pursuant to section 766.106, the claimant's presuit investigation must

Duffy v. Brooker

614 So. 2d 539, 1993 WL 8994

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 21, 1993 | Docket: 1509854

Cited 13 times | Published

(1989). We affirm. In August 1990, pursuant to section 766.106, Mrs. Brooker filed a notice of intent to initiate

Holmes Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Dumigan

151 So. 3d 1282, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20157, 2014 WL 6990548

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 12, 2014 | Docket: 60244423

Cited 12 times | Published

... medical care or services.’ ” Id. (citing § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. Stat.). In other words, the alleged

Raphael v. Shecter

18 So. 3d 1152, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14084, 2009 WL 3018157

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 23, 2009 | Docket: 83627

Cited 12 times | Published

practitioners shall not exceed $300,000. [3] Section 766.106(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2002). [4] This statement

Corbo v. Garcia

949 So. 2d 366, 2007 WL 624722

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 2, 2007 | Docket: 1720045

Cited 12 times | Published

failure to render, medical care or services." § 766.106(1)(a); see J.B. v. Sacred Heart Hosp. of Pensacola

Tenet St. Mary's Inc. v. Serratore

869 So. 2d 729, 2004 WL 736435

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 7, 2004 | Docket: 1175357

Cited 12 times | Published

failure to follow the presuit requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2001). On September 27,

Torrey v. Leesburg Regional Medical Center

769 So. 2d 1040, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 911, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 2040, 2000 WL 1588051

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 26, 2000 | Docket: 1476642

Cited 12 times | Published

file a medical malpractice claim required by section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes (1999). The notice of

Sova Drugs, Inc. v. Barnes

661 So. 2d 393, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10641, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2304

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 13, 1995 | Docket: 532412

Cited 12 times | Published

health care provider ... (emphasis supplied) Section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes (1993) requires that presuit

Sheffield v. Davis

562 So. 2d 384, 1990 WL 68724

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 25, 1990 | Docket: 1674553

Cited 12 times | Published

to section 766.106, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988). Former section 768.57(4) (now section 766.106(4))

Largie v. Gregorian

913 So. 2d 635, 2005 WL 1631086

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 13, 2005 | Docket: 1698277

Cited 11 times | Published

dismissed and re-filed in November 2003. See § 766.106(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002)("[n]o suit may be filed

First Healthcare Corp. v. Hamilton

740 So. 2d 1189, 1999 WL 436802

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 18, 1999 | Docket: 1456563

Cited 11 times | Published

to comply with the pre-suit requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1995). Defendants' argument

Cohen v. Dauphinee

739 So. 2d 68, 1999 WL 236248

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 15, 1999 | Docket: 1293999

Cited 11 times | Published

[1] is protected by the provisions *69 of section 766.106(5), Florida Statutes (1995).[2] We conclude

Okaloosa County v. Custer

697 So. 2d 1297, 1997 WL 528292

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 19, 1997 | Docket: 1777523

Cited 11 times | Published

scarring as a result. Respondent filed an amended section 766.106 notice of intent on May 2, 1996, effectively

Rhoades v. SW FLA. REGIONAL MED. CTR.

554 So. 2d 1188

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 8, 1989 | Docket: 1319163

Cited 11 times | Published

Transferred to section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.). [2] Transferred to section 766.106(2), Florida

Lindberg v. Hosp. Corp. of America

545 So. 2d 1384, 1989 WL 75737

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 12, 1989 | Docket: 1702833

Cited 11 times | Published

to be certified. NOTES [1] Now renumbered section 766.106, Florida Statutes by the official reviser.

Abbey v. Patrick

16 So. 3d 1051, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 13673, 2009 WL 2914193

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 14, 2009 | Docket: 211111

Cited 10 times | Published

limitations would have expired. According to section 766.106(4), Florida Statutes (2006), the notice had

Advisory Op. to Atty. Gen. Re Comp. Amend.

880 So. 2d 675

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 15, 2004 | Docket: 1689296

Cited 10 times | Published

all prospective defendants of the claims. See § 766.106, Fla. Stat. (2003). At times, it is often difficult

Citron v. Shell

689 So. 2d 1288, 1997 WL 133789

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 26, 1997 | Docket: 1477418

Cited 10 times | Published

opinion. He apparently bases this argument on section 766.106(5), which provides that work product generated

Goldman v. HALIFAX MEDICAL CTR., INC.

662 So. 2d 367, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 9715, 1995 WL 544149

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 15, 1995 | Docket: 1683410

Cited 10 times | Published

services." McCullough, 590 So.2d at 441 (quoting § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989)). The court then determined

Goldman v. HALIFAX MEDICAL CTR., INC.

662 So. 2d 367, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 9715, 1995 WL 544149

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 15, 1995 | Docket: 1683410

Cited 10 times | Published

services." McCullough, 590 So.2d at 441 (quoting § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989)). The court then determined

Shands Teaching Hospital v. Miller

642 So. 2d 48, 1994 WL 447285

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 22, 1994 | Docket: 2566913

Cited 10 times | Published

allow for a reasonable investigation under section 766.106, Florida Statutes. The complaint was filed

Dr. Navarro's Vein Centre of the Palm Beach, Inc. v. Miller

22 So. 3d 776, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 17241, 2009 WL 3837205

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 18, 2009 | Docket: 1122061

Cited 9 times | Published

medical malpractice presuit requirements of section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes (2008). We grant the petition

Quintanilla v. Coral Gables Hospital, Inc.

941 So. 2d 468, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 18333, 2006 WL 3078909

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 1, 2006 | Docket: 1523660

Cited 9 times | Published

comply with the pre-suit requirements under section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2002), by failing to file

St. Mary's Hosp. v. Bell

785 So. 2d 1261, 2001 WL 609240

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 6, 2001 | Docket: 1510164

Cited 9 times | Published

intent to initiate litigation pursuant to section 766.106(2). The notice alleged a failure to properly

Lake Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Clarke

768 So. 2d 1251, 2000 WL 1528020

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 17, 2000 | Docket: 474360

Cited 9 times | Published

failure to follow the pre-suit requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1997), before proceeding

Jaszay v. HB CORPORATION

598 So. 2d 112, 1992 WL 68980

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 8, 1992 | Docket: 351507

Cited 9 times | Published

the pre-suit screening period required under section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1991). To repeat Judge Schwartz's

Joseph v. University Behavioral LLC

71 So. 3d 913, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15862, 2011 WL 5108524

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 7, 2011 | Docket: 60303168

Cited 8 times | Published

filing of this action pursuant to Florida Statutes § 766.106 and § 766.203.” UBC then moved for summary judgment

Holden v. Bober

39 So. 3d 396, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 9131, 2010 WL 2507279

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 23, 2010 | Docket: 1923934

Cited 8 times | Published

intent to initiate a medical negligence action. § 766.106(2)(a). However, a prospective defendant "may file

BD. OF REGENTS OF STATE OF FLA. v. Athey

694 So. 2d 46

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 31, 1997 | Docket: 1450269

Cited 8 times | Published

of intent to initiate actions pursuant to section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1989), for neurological

Broadway v. Bay Hospital, Inc.

638 So. 2d 176, 1994 WL 257045

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 14, 1994 | Docket: 1652572

Cited 8 times | Published

investigation requirements of chapter 766. Under section 766.106(1)(a), Florida Statutes, "claim for medical

Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Browne

44 So. 3d 237, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 14489, 2010 WL 3766940

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 29, 2010 | Docket: 60295583

Cited 7 times | Published

requirement for a medical malpractice action. See § 766.106, Fla. Stat. (2009). As we explained in Mobley

LAKELAND REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER v. Allen

944 So. 2d 541, 2006 WL 3780714

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 27, 2006 | Docket: 1649288

Cited 7 times | Published

definition, the complaint sounds in malpractice. § 766.106(1)(a). Chapter 766 presuit notice is required

Goldfarb v. Urciuoli

858 So. 2d 397, 28 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2545

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 6, 2003 | Docket: 183167

Cited 7 times | Published

661 So.2d 393, 394 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). II. Section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes (2000), of the Medical

Stone v. Rosenthal

665 So. 2d 276, 1995 WL 689540

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 22, 1995 | Docket: 1705135

Cited 7 times | Published

mailed statutory notice letters, pursuant to section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes, to each prospective defendant

Bombalier v. Lifemark Hosp. of Fla.

661 So. 2d 849, 1995 WL 521222

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 6, 1995 | Docket: 1526304

Cited 7 times | Published

initiate medical malpractice litigation. Fla. Stat. § 766.106(2) (1993). Pursuant to section 766.207(7)(k),

Goodlet v. Steckler

586 So. 2d 74, 1991 WL 150406

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 7, 1991 | Docket: 1487137

Cited 7 times | Published

1989. See § 768.57, *75 Fla. Stat. (1987); cf. § 766.106, Fla. Stat. (1989). In this case, the notice to

Riggenbach v. Rhodes

267 So. 3d 551

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 29, 2019 | Docket: 64709237

Cited 6 times | Published

permanent injury to Rhodes' wrist. Pursuant to section 766.106(4), Rhodes served Petitioners with a presuit

Franks v. Bowers

116 So. 3d 1240, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 416, 2013 WL 3064807, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 1222

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 20, 2013 | Docket: 60232304

Cited 6 times | Published

claimant’s notice to initiate a malpractice claim. § 766.106(3)(a). Before the defendant may deny the claimant’s

Waddington v. Baptist Medical Center of Beaches, Inc.

78 So. 3d 114, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1312, 2012 WL 254965

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 30, 2012 | Docket: 2355283

Cited 6 times | Published

VACATE AND SET ASIDE SUMMARY FINAL JUDGMENT. A. Section 766.106(5), Florida Statutes Does Not Prohibit Plaintiff

Sahyers v. Prugh, Holliday & Karatinos, P.L.

603 F.3d 888, 16 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 12, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 7655, 2010 WL 1488520

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Apr 14, 2010 | Docket: 359078

Cited 6 times | Published

circumstance does not apply here. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. § 766.106(2)(a) (providing that “prior to filing a complaint

Puentes v. Tenet Hialeah Healthsystem

843 So. 2d 356, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 6156, 2003 WL 1969253

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 30, 2003 | Docket: 1670451

Cited 6 times | Published

hospital's negligence so that compliance with section 766.106 notice requirements was required. In this case

De La Torre v. ORTA EX REL. ORTA

785 So. 2d 553, 2001 WL 273808

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 21, 2001 | Docket: 2555863

Cited 6 times | Published

initiate a medical malpractice claim, pursuant to section 766.106, Florida Statutes (Supp.1998), to which the

Neate v. Cypress Club Condominium, Inc.

718 So. 2d 390, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12903, 1998 WL 712873

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 1998 | Docket: 1515123

Cited 6 times | Published

provisions in other statutes. For example in section 766.106 the legislature has required that an action

Clark v. Sarasota County Public Hospital Board

65 F. Supp. 2d 1308, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22696, 1998 WL 1112980

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Aug 31, 1998 | Docket: 2297682

Cited 6 times | Published

the statutorily mandated presuit investigation, § 766.106, Florida Statutes requires a claimant to provide

Rothschild v. NME Hospitals, Inc.

707 So. 2d 952, 1998 WL 130094

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 25, 1998 | Docket: 1675971

Cited 6 times | Published

litigation under section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes (1995). Under section 766.106(4), the statute of

Correa v. Robertson

693 So. 2d 619, 1997 WL 133934

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 26, 1997 | Docket: 435346

Cited 6 times | Published

failure to render, medical care or services." § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). Therefore, we deny the

Faber v. Wrobel

673 So. 2d 871, 1995 WL 715489

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 6, 1995 | Docket: 1671343

Cited 6 times | Published

negligent in their care of Mrs. Faber. Pursuant to section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1991), a notice of intent

Wolfsen v. Applegate

619 So. 2d 1050, 1993 WL 210583

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 18, 1993 | Docket: 1381557

Cited 6 times | Published

we reverse. In February 1991, pursuant to section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes (1989), Wolfsen's attorney

Wainscott v. Rindley

610 So. 2d 649, 1992 WL 370265

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 15, 1992 | Docket: 1734713

Cited 6 times | Published

detailing the alleged malpractice, as required by section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes (1989).[1] Rindley is

The National Deaf Academy, LLC, etc. v. Denise Townes, etc.

242 So. 3d 303

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 26, 2018 | Docket: 6376661

Cited 5 times | Published

of the medical malpractice statutory scheme. § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008). 1 In the

Oken v. Williams

23 So. 3d 140, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14590, 2009 WL 3103853

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 30, 2009 | Docket: 1180414

Cited 5 times | Published

defendants of the intent to pursue litigation. See § 766.106(2), Fla. Stat. (2008). Certiorari review is indeed

Tenet South Florida Health Systems v. Jackson

991 So. 2d 396, 2008 WL 4224382

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 17, 2008 | Docket: 1725036

Cited 5 times | Published

with the presuit screening requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2007). The trial court denied

Rodriguez v. Saenz

866 So. 2d 184, 2004 WL 314465

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 20, 2004 | Docket: 1680043

Cited 5 times | Published

this case, the extensions contemplated in section 766.106(4) would, if the appellees were correct, never

Welker v. Southern Baptist Hosp. of Florida, Inc.

864 So. 2d 1178, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 54, 2004 WL 34512

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 8, 2004 | Docket: 1727646

Cited 5 times | Published

with the presuit screening requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1999); and (3) the impact

Romine v. FLORIDA BIRTH RELATED NICA

842 So. 2d 148, 2003 WL 327530

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 14, 2003 | Docket: 1730578

Cited 5 times | Published

litigation for medical negligence pursuant to section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1998), on Dr. Samir Shakfeh

O'Shea v. Phillips

746 So. 2d 1105, 1999 WL 741115

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 24, 1999 | Docket: 1714974

Cited 5 times | Published

required presuit notice and procedures apply, section 766.106(1)(a) defines a "[c]laim for medical malpractice"

Otto v. Rodriguez

710 So. 2d 1, 1998 WL 39351

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 4, 1998 | Docket: 1444446

Cited 5 times | Published

to provide the pre-suit notice mandated by section 766.106, Florida Statutes. Defendant/Appellee's failure

Parham v. Balis

704 So. 2d 623, 1997 WL 716797

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 12, 1997 | Docket: 1354557

Cited 5 times | Published

intent to initiate litigation pursuant to section 766.106, and on April 17, 1995, he served an amended

Foshee v. Health Management Associates

675 So. 2d 957, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4717, 1996 WL 237421

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 10, 1996 | Docket: 1694409

Cited 5 times | Published

comply with the pre-suit notice requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1989). See Tunner v. Foss

Tunner v. Foss

655 So. 2d 1151, 1995 WL 232563

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 1995 | Docket: 1326873

Cited 5 times | Published

requirements for filing a medical malpractice suit. Section 766.106 requires plaintiffs to notify each prospective

Tanner v. Hartog

593 So. 2d 249, 1992 WL 571

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 31, 1992 | Docket: 1508955

Cited 5 times | Published

statute of limitation period as provided in Section 766.106, Florida Statutes. Plaintiffs therefore had

Harr v. HILLSBOROUGH COMMUNITY MH CTR.

591 So. 2d 1051, 1991 WL 275534

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 27, 1991 | Docket: 541391

Cited 5 times | Published

the statute of limitations for a 90 day period. § 766.106(4), Fla. Stat. (1989). [2] Actually Mrs. Harr

Novitsky v. Hards

589 So. 2d 404, 1991 WL 234545

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 14, 1991 | Docket: 1730671

Cited 5 times | Published

This statute was revised and transferred to section 766.106, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988). [3] In Ingersoll

Jane Doe v. Baptist Primary Care, Inc

177 So. 3d 669

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 20, 2015 | Docket: 2991541

Cited 4 times | Published

applicability of chapter 766, the supreme court read section 766.106(l)(a), Florida Statutes (defining a claim for

Glen Murphy v. Aldolfo C. Dulay

768 F.3d 1360, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 19311, 2014 WL 5072710

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Oct 10, 2014 | Docket: 1440801

Cited 4 times | Published

requirements. We review the presuit requirements in § 766.106 not challenged here in order to place the challenged

Palms West Hospital Ltd. Partnership v. Burns

83 So. 3d 785, 2011 WL 5964360, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18986

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 30, 2011 | Docket: 60306501

Cited 4 times | Published

failure to render, medical care or services.” See § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009); see also J.B. v. Sacred

University of Central Florida Board of Trustees v. Turkiewicz

21 So. 3d 141, 29 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1839, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 16555, 2009 WL 3672073

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 6, 2009 | Docket: 1230234

Cited 4 times | Published

not comply with the pre-suit requirements of section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes, in a medical malpractice

Florida Hosp. Waterman v. Stoll

855 So. 2d 271, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 14924, 2003 WL 22259832

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 3, 2003 | Docket: 1752472

Cited 4 times | Published

asked for informal discovery as provided in section 766.106, including tax returns filed by Stoll since

Hillsborough County Hosp. Auth. v. Coffaro

829 So. 2d 862, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 791, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 1946, 2002 WL 31190892

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 3, 2002 | Docket: 1733529

Cited 4 times | Published

*863 ENTITLED TO AN ADDITIONAL 60 DAYS UNDER SECTION 766.106(4) FOR FILING SUIT? See Coffaro v. Hillsborough

Yell v. Healthmark of Walton, Inc.

772 So. 2d 568, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 14659, 2000 WL 1675899

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 9, 2000 | Docket: 64802053

Cited 4 times | Published

letterhead to Yell’s attorney: “Pursuant to Florida Statute 766.106 and 766.207 on behalf of Walton Regional

Pavolini v. Bird

769 So. 2d 410, 2000 WL 1228010

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 30, 2000 | Docket: 1476617

Cited 4 times | Published

appellants to give separate notice pursuant to section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes (1999) of their intent

Virginia Ins. Reciprocal v. Walker

765 So. 2d 229, 2000 WL 1049874

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 1, 2000 | Docket: 428608

Cited 4 times | Published

within the sixty-day tolling period set by section 766.106(4), Florida Statutes. The defendants filed

Stewart v. Price

718 So. 2d 205, 1998 WL 422317

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 29, 1998 | Docket: 1515133

Cited 4 times | Published

claim for medical malpractice as defined in section 766.106(1). Because the lower court found that Pittman's

Stewart v. Price

718 So. 2d 205, 1998 WL 422317

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 29, 1998 | Docket: 1515133

Cited 4 times | Published

claim for medical malpractice as defined in section 766.106(1). Because the lower court found that Pittman's

St. Mary's Hosp., Inc. v. Phillipe

699 So. 2d 1017

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 22, 1997 | Docket: 1693937

Cited 4 times | Published

arbitration of medical malpractice claims. Under section 766.106, a defendant's insurer may make an offer of

Melanson v. Agravat

675 So. 2d 1032, 1996 WL 362725

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 2, 1996 | Docket: 1694627

Cited 4 times | Published

a medical malpractice action against him. See § 766.106(2), Fla. Stat. On August 23, 1993, Agravat sought

TALLAHASSEE MEM. REG. MED. v. Kinsey

655 So. 2d 1191

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 18, 1995 | Docket: 1327282

Cited 4 times | Published

issues raised by appellees. The substance of section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1993), was originally enacted

Southern Neurosurgical Associates v. Fine

591 So. 2d 252, 1991 WL 186984

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 18, 1991 | Docket: 1528163

Cited 4 times | Published

complaint against it, for failure to comply with section 766.106, Florida Statutes, and/or failure to bring

Kalbach v. Day

589 So. 2d 448, 1991 WL 240061

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 20, 1991 | Docket: 1441598

Cited 4 times | Published

filed during the 90-day tolling period of section 766.106(4) in which no suit may be filed, and dismissed

University of Miami v. Echarte

585 So. 2d 293, 1991 WL 98016

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 11, 1991 | Docket: 369293

Cited 4 times | Published

be amputated to save her life. Pursuant to section 766.106, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988), Patricia and

Moore v. Winter Haven Hosp.

579 So. 2d 188, 1991 WL 53555

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 12, 1991 | Docket: 1728621

Cited 4 times | Published

within which to file suit. [Transferred to section 766.106(4), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.).] [4] See

Emma Gayle Weaver, etc. v. Stephen C. Myers, M.D.

229 So. 3d 1118

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 9, 2017 | Docket: 6220622

Cited 3 times | Published

initiate litigation and make certain disclosures. § 766.106(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016). The notice must disclose

Lois Vance v. Okaloosa-Walton Urology, P.A., etc.

228 So. 3d 1199, 2017 WL 5076898

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 6, 2017 | Docket: 6217561

Cited 3 times | Published

1st DCA 2015) .(citations omitted); see also § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011) (defining a claim for

Pierrot v. Osceola Mental Health, Inc.

106 So. 3d 491, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 464, 2013 WL 132463

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 11, 2013 | Docket: 60228219

Cited 3 times | Published

rights not mentioned in chapter 766. Nothing in section 766.106 compels this court to read that statute in

Gordon v. Shield

41 So. 3d 931, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10357, 2010 WL 2882443

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 14, 2010 | Docket: 2396869

Cited 3 times | Published

litigation for medical malpractice, pursuant to section 766.106. In September 2008, Gordon and Strax requested

Gutman v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc.

707 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49212, 2010 WL 1626399

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Apr 7, 2010 | Docket: 2405485

Cited 3 times | Published

for medical negligence claims under Fla. Stat. § 766.106 (2009) and that Counts III and IV fail because

Gutman v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc.

707 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49212, 2010 WL 1626399

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Apr 7, 2010 | Docket: 2405485

Cited 3 times | Published

for medical negligence claims under Fla. Stat. § 766.106 (2009) and that Counts III and IV fail because

Gonzalez v. Tracy

994 So. 2d 402, 2008 WL 4643122

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 22, 2008 | Docket: 1666851

Cited 3 times | Published

(last visited Oct. 14, 2008). [2] Pursuant to section 766.106(4), Florida Statutes (2006), the statute of

SOUTHERN BAPTIST HOSP. OF FLORIDA v. Ashe

948 So. 2d 889, 2007 WL 412431

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 8, 2007 | Docket: 1769676

Cited 3 times | Published

the presuit requirements of chapter 766. See § 766.106(2), Fla. Stat. (2003) (requiring plaintiffs in

Bonati v. Allen

911 So. 2d 285, 2005 WL 2398530

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 30, 2005 | Docket: 1751898

Cited 3 times | Published

intent to initiate litigation pursuant to section 766.106(2). In the notice, Alfred Bonati, M.D., was

LaRiviere v. South Broward Hosp. Dist.

889 So. 2d 972, 2004 WL 2952738

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 22, 2004 | Docket: 1742749

Cited 3 times | Published

medical malpractice litigation, required by section 766.106(2)(a), Florida Statutes, to the district's

McPherson v. Phillips

877 So. 2d 755, 2004 WL 1255652

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 9, 2004 | Docket: 1285184

Cited 3 times | Published

opinion: (1) the trial court's rulings under section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2002); (2) whether the trial

Rooss v. Mayberry

866 So. 2d 174, 2004 WL 314492

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 20, 2004 | Docket: 1680252

Cited 3 times | Published

PETERSON and ORFINGER, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 766.106, Fla. Stat.

Popps v. Foltz

806 So. 2d 583, 2002 WL 122301

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 30, 2002 | Docket: 1712921

Cited 3 times | Published

gave the unsworn statement contemplated by section 766.106(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1997). Defendants

COLUMBIA/JFK MEDICAL CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. Brown

805 So. 2d 28, 2001 WL 1418624

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 14, 2001 | Docket: 1669581

Cited 3 times | Published

alleged in the presuit screening required by section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1997). In the presuit screening

Integrated Health Care Services, Inc. v. Lang-Redway

783 So. 2d 1108, 2001 WL 228024

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 9, 2001 | Docket: 1259332

Cited 3 times | Published

to comply with the presuit requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1997). Although there may

Pergrem v. Horan

669 So. 2d 1150, 1996 WL 124200

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 22, 1996 | Docket: 530713

Cited 3 times | Published

intent to sue pursuant to the requirements of section 766.106(2). That statute provides: After completion

Estevez v. Montero

662 So. 2d 1268, 1995 WL 521114

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 6, 1995 | Docket: 1683555

Cited 3 times | Published

conducted a reasonable investigation. We disagree. Section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1993), reads, in pertinent

Steele v. Davis

667 So. 2d 264, 1995 WL 511592

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 31, 1995 | Docket: 1622847

Cited 3 times | Published

comply with the pre-suit notice requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes. Steele argues that the notice

Mieles v. South Miami Hosp.

659 So. 2d 1265, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 9128, 1995 WL 509274

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 30, 1995 | Docket: 1748108

Cited 3 times | Published

of Intent upon the hospital as required by section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1993). Attached was a "Verified

Doe v. Young

656 So. 2d 569, 1995 WL 358085

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 16, 1995 | Docket: 1283617

Cited 3 times | Published

notice and screening period requirements of section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994), for medical

Castillo-Plaza v. Green

655 So. 2d 197, 1995 WL 316546

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 24, 1995 | Docket: 1696756

Cited 3 times | Published

"informal discovery" provided by the statute, see § 766.106(7), Fla. Stat. (1993) which was adopted almost

Wilkinson v. Golden

630 So. 2d 1238, 1994 WL 22576

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 28, 1994 | Docket: 481361

Cited 3 times | Published

Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988), and strengthened section 766.106.[1] These changes were enacted with the stated

Zacker v. Croft

609 So. 2d 140, 1992 WL 353117

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 2, 1992 | Docket: 1738343

Cited 3 times | Published

concluded appellants failed to comply with section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1988), and entered a summary

Allen v. Orlando Regional Medical Center

606 So. 2d 665, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9889, 1992 WL 228916

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 18, 1992 | Docket: 129735

Cited 3 times | Published

Statutes (1987). The statute was transferred to section 766.106, Florida Statutes, in 1988 and currently provides:

Grimshaw v. Schwegel

572 So. 2d 12, 1990 WL 211493

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 21, 1990 | Docket: 2526343

Cited 3 times | Published

(1987) (now codified at § 766.106(5), Fla. Stat. (1989)). The present section 766.106(5) contains this same

Barron v. Crenshaw

573 So. 2d 17, 1990 WL 199169

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 13, 1990 | Docket: 479032

Cited 3 times | Published

notice of claim for medical malpractice under section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1987). T. Dwight Barron

SERENITY HARPER v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.

272 So. 3d 448

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 1, 2019 | Docket: 14579152

Cited 2 times | Published

notice—that triggers the countdown. See, e.g., § 766.106(2)(a), (3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013) (requiring a

Eileen Hernandez, M.D. v. Lualhati Crespo

211 So. 3d 19, 41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 625, 2016 WL 7406537, 2016 Fla. LEXIS 2718

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 22, 2016 | Docket: 4556948

Cited 2 times | Published

damages determined by an arbitration panel"); § 766.106(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2003) ("At or before the end

Coffey-Garcia and Garcia v. South Miami Hospital, Inc.

194 So. 3d 533, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 9575, 2016 WL 3410415

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 22, 2016 | Docket: 3081240

Cited 2 times | Published

litigation for medical malpractice, see § 766.106(2), Florida Statutes (2013), the Garcias filed

Shands Teaching Hospital & Clinics, Inc. v. Estate of Lawson ex rel. Lawson

175 So. 3d 327, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 12951, 2015 WL 5057325

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 28, 2015 | Docket: 60250551

Cited 2 times | Published

complaint alleges medical negligence under section 766.106(l)(a), Florida Statutes. We thus grant the

Edwards v. Sunrise Ophthalmology ASC, LLC

134 So. 3d 1056, 2013 WL 4525599, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 13669

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 28, 2013 | Docket: 60239018

Cited 2 times | Published

comply with the spirit or law embodied by Florida Statute 766.106.... Specifically, these defendants claim

Acosta v. Healthspring of Florida, Inc.

118 So. 3d 246, 2013 WL 3723310, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11358

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 17, 2013 | Docket: 60233137

Cited 2 times | Published

“claims for medical malpractice” as defined in section 766.106(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), and (2) even

Omni Healthcare, Inc. v. Moser

106 So. 3d 474, 2012 WL 6061086

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 7, 2012 | Docket: 60228210

Cited 2 times | Published

to comply with the presuit requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes. The trial court denied the

Bery v. Fahel

88 So. 3d 236, 2011 WL 4949904, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16368

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 19, 2011 | Docket: 60308204

Cited 2 times | Published

physician, which was dated October 31, 2008. § 766.106(2), Fla. Stat. (2008). Shortly after Dr. Khilnani

M.D. v. United States

745 F. Supp. 2d 1274, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110437, 2010 WL 3893750

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Sep 30, 2010 | Docket: 2342280

Cited 2 times | Published

modifies pre-suit notification requirements, id. § 766.106, and requires mediation for malpractice cases

Scherer v. Rigsby

24 So. 3d 561, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 8766, 2009 WL 1872331

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 1, 2009 | Docket: 2576714

Cited 2 times | Published

comply with the presuit notice requirements of section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Civil

STEMERMAN, LAZARUS, SIMOVITCH v. Fuerst

4 So. 3d 55

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 18, 2009 | Docket: 1666847

Cited 2 times | Published

defendants of the intent to pursue litigation. See § 766.106(2), Fla. Stat. (2008). Certiorari review is indeed

Stemerman, Lazarus, Simovitch, Billings, Finer & Ginsburg, M.D.'s P.A. v. Fuerst

4 So. 3d 55, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1263, 2009 WL 383630

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 18, 2009 | Docket: 60295079

Cited 2 times | Published

defendants of the intent to pursue litigation. See § 766.106(2), Fla. Stat. (2008). Certiorari review is indeed

LIFESOUTH CMTY. BLOOD CENTERS v. Fitchner

970 So. 2d 379, 2007 WL 3144829

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 26, 2007 | Docket: 1324266

Cited 2 times | Published

comply with the presuit notice requirements of section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes. We agree with LifeSouth

In Re Amendments to Rules of Civ. Procedure

966 So. 2d 943, 32 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 606, 2007 Fla. LEXIS 1788, 2007 WL 2790745

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 27, 2007 | Docket: 1679427

Cited 2 times | Published

comply with the good faith requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes. (B) Documents or Things

Mirza v. Trombley

946 So. 2d 1096, 2006 WL 3523640

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 8, 2006 | Docket: 1771254

Cited 2 times | Published

serve him with a notice of intent pursuant to section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes (2004), and did not individually

Blom v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc.

911 So. 2d 211, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 14876, 2005 WL 2319000

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 23, 2005 | Docket: 64840439

Cited 2 times | Published

medical malpractice pre-suit requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2004). We dismiss the petition

Cohen v. West Boca Medical Center, Inc.

854 So. 2d 276, 2003 WL 22136088

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 17, 2003 | Docket: 1459830

Cited 2 times | Published

day after the ninety day period provided by section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2000) expired, and the statute

Walker v. Virginia Ins. Reciprocal

842 So. 2d 804, 2003 WL 1338990

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 20, 2003 | Docket: 1730419

Cited 2 times | Published

to litigate" against Walker, as provided in section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1998).[3] When the

Moss v. Stadlan

789 So. 2d 1069, 2001 WL 649462

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 13, 2001 | Docket: 2560103

Cited 2 times | Published

of the lack of presuit notice. We reverse. Section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes requires a medical malpractice

Coffaro v. HILLSBOROUGH CTY. HOSP. AUTH.

752 So. 2d 712, 2000 WL 216713

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 25, 2000 | Docket: 1280268

Cited 2 times | Published

obtained simply by payment of a filing fee.) Section 766.106(3)(a) provides for a mandatory 90-day tolling

Wendel v. Hauser

726 So. 2d 378, 1999 WL 69619

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 10, 1999 | Docket: 1711575

Cited 2 times | Published

negligence presuit process. He contends that section 766.106, Florida Statutes, tolled the one year limitation

Community Blood Centers v. Damiano

697 So. 2d 948, 1997 WL 430003

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 30, 1997 | Docket: 1777526

Cited 2 times | Published

complaint based on plaintiffs' noncompliance with section 766.106, the medical malpractice presuit requirements

Robbins v. Orlando, HMA, Inc.

683 So. 2d 664, 1996 WL 695273

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 6, 1996 | Docket: 466124

Cited 2 times | Published

render, medical care or services.'" Id. (quoting § 766.106, Fla. Stat. (1989)). Robbins filed a seven count

Paulk v. National Medical Enterprises

679 So. 2d 1289, 1996 WL 539833

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 25, 1996 | Docket: 1187865

Cited 2 times | Published

to sue are required by section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1995). Section 766.106(2) states in part that:

Bradford Ex Rel. Bradford v. Fla. Birth-Related Neuro.

667 So. 2d 401, 1995 WL 757878

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 27, 1995 | Docket: 2560790

Cited 2 times | Published

provision of our present medical malpractice law, section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes (1993), it is provided

Cohen v. DeYoung

655 So. 2d 1265, 1995 WL 325942

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 2, 1995 | Docket: 1696925

Cited 2 times | Published

HARRIS, C.J., and THOMPSON, J., concur. NOTES [1] § 766.106(2), Fla. Stat.

Higgs v. Florida Dept. of Corrections

654 So. 2d 624, 1995 WL 258900

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 5, 1995 | Docket: 1710399

Cited 2 times | Published

malpractice litigation was served as required by section 766.106(4), Florida Statutes (1991), and section 768

Mason v. Bisogno

633 So. 2d 464, 1994 WL 28838

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 4, 1994 | Docket: 1708111

Cited 2 times | Published

to resolve the lawsuit short of litigation. Section 766.106(3)(a), (b), Fla. Stat. (1991). Rights and obligations

J.B. And J.W.B., Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, S.B. And E.B. And M.B. Individually v. Sacred Heart Hospital of Pensacola

996 F.2d 276, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 19190

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jul 27, 1993 | Docket: 372177

Cited 2 times | Published

the Supreme Court of Florida. Fla.Stat. § 766.106(l)(a) defines a “[cjlaim for medical malpractice”

Groth v. Weinstock

610 So. 2d 477, 1992 WL 322993

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 6, 1992 | Docket: 1734738

Cited 2 times | Published

requirements to health care providers. For example, section 766.106 provides for notice before filing an action

Dressler v. BOCA RATON COMMUNITY HOSP.

566 So. 2d 571, 1990 WL 125091

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 29, 1990 | Docket: 548172

Cited 2 times | Published

Section 768.57 has been renumbered and is now section 766.106, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988). [2] Appellants

Riggenbach v. Rhodes

267 So. 3d 551

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 29, 2019 | Docket: 64709238

Cited 1 times | Published

permanent injury to Rhodes' wrist. Pursuant to section 766.106(4), Rhodes served Petitioners with a presuit

Simmons v. Jackson Memorial Hospital

253 So. 3d 59

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 1, 2018 | Docket: 7567931

Cited 1 times | Published

requires compliance with the notice provision of section 766.106 of the Florida Statutes. I. Facts and

Diane Rodriguez and David Rodriguez, etc. v. Ernst Nicolitz, M.D. and Lenka Champion, M.D.

246 So. 3d 550

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 18, 2018 | Docket: 6771557

Cited 1 times | Published

to initiate litigation for medical negligence. § 766.106(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012). With the notice, a potential

Bay County Board of County Commissioners v. Seeley

217 So. 3d 228, 2017 WL 1437375, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 5667

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 24, 2017 | Docket: 60265676

Cited 1 times | Published

served within [the statute of limitations]”); section 766.106(4), Florida Statutes (2013) (emphasis added);

Mark E. Pomper, M.D., P.A. v. Ferraro

206 So. 3d 728, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 18779

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 21, 2016 | Docket: 63631146

Cited 1 times | Published

medical malpractice actions contained within section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2015). The core dispute

Nieves, M.D. v. Viera

150 So. 3d 1236, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18947, 2014 WL 6464646

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 19, 2014 | Docket: 2606364

Cited 1 times | Published

malpractice action against him pursuant to section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2011). Included was the

In re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Case—Report No. 12-01

130 So. 3d 596, 2013 WL 2349287

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 30, 2013 | Docket: 60237846

Cited 1 times | Published

claims for medical malpractice as defined by F.S. 766.106(1) (1989). 2. This instruction is intended to

King v. Baptist Hospital of Miami, Inc.

87 So. 3d 39, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5481, 2012 WL 1192082

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 11, 2012 | Docket: 60307992

Cited 1 times | Published

King’s motion for rehearing. We conclude that section 766.106, Florida Statute’s (2003), notice of intent

Porumbescu v. Thompson

987 So. 2d 1275, 2008 WL 3850381

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 20, 2008 | Docket: 1724213

Cited 1 times | Published

account for the ninety-day tolling period under section 766.106(4), Florida Statutes (1999). Therefore, we

Freeman v. Cohen

969 So. 2d 1150, 2007 WL 4124604

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 21, 2007 | Docket: 1726041

Cited 1 times | Published

presuit investigation procedure pursuant to section 766.106 and violation of the duty of good faith settlement

University of Miami v. Wilson

948 So. 2d 774, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2728, 2006 WL 1687685

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 28, 2007 | Docket: 1767914

Cited 1 times | Published

malpractice presuit notice requirement is found in section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes (2002), which provides

ARCH PLAZA, INC. v. Perpall

947 So. 2d 476, 2006 WL 3208556

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 8, 2006 | Docket: 1375842

Cited 1 times | Published

of the nursing home statute is analogous to section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes, the medical malpractice

Mount Sinai Medical Center v. Fotea

937 So. 2d 146, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 9641, 2006 WL 1627448

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 14, 2006 | Docket: 64846575

Cited 1 times | Published

illegal drugs, Mount Sinai Baker Acted Fotea. Section 766.106, Florida Statutes, requires that a plaintiff

Lee v. Simon

885 So. 2d 939, 2004 WL 2389952

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 27, 2004 | Docket: 1287007

Cited 1 times | Published

Lee commenced pre-suit proceedings under section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1998), by filing a notice

Lee v. Simon

885 So. 2d 939, 2004 WL 2389952

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 27, 2004 | Docket: 1287007

Cited 1 times | Published

Lee commenced pre-suit proceedings under section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1998), by filing a notice

Vincent v. Kaufman

855 So. 2d 1153, 2003 WL 22136093

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 17, 2003 | Docket: 2362323

Cited 1 times | Published

applicable claim or defense ultimately asserted. Section 766.106(3)(a) provides that no medical malpractice

Burbank v. Kero

813 So. 2d 292, 2002 WL 596814

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 19, 2002 | Docket: 1725803

Cited 1 times | Published

holding of Hankey and the plain language of section 766.106(4), Florida Statutes, the statute of limitations

Preferred Medical Plan, Inc. v. Ramos

742 So. 2d 322, 1999 WL 454473

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 7, 1999 | Docket: 1710262

Cited 1 times | Published

were not permitted for failure to comply with section 766.106, Florida Statutes. Alternatively, the trial

Hazen v. Kaplan

734 So. 2d 441, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 5537, 1999 WL 252479

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 30, 1999 | Docket: 64788579

Cited 1 times | Published

initiate medical malpractice litigation, see § 766.106(2), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994), and subsequently filed

Brancaccio v. Mediplex Management of Port St. Lucie, Inc.

711 So. 2d 1206, 1998 WL 209138

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 30, 1998 | Docket: 2547960

Cited 1 times | Published

warrants a dismissal of this action. See: Section 766.106(6)(7), Florida Statutes; Bartley v. Ross, 559

Holly Brothers and Jaidon Naquin v. Tricia M. Percy, D.O.; All About Women, OB-GYN, Panama City, LLC; Antonio Esteban Pena, M.D.; And Paula C. Fulford, APRN

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 13, 2025 | Docket: 71098921

Published

measures to their son after an initial examination. § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2025) (defining a “claim for

Donald Noble v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 16, 2025 | Docket: 69899477

Published

Noble’s presuit notice was defective under section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2021). Section 776.106 requires

Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Arlene Anderson, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Zachary Taylor Anderson

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 19, 2025 | Docket: 69651628

Published

“medical negligence” within the meaning of section 766.106(1)(a), Florida Statutes: In Silva

Leon Medical Centers, LLC v. Elsa Falcon, Etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 12, 2025 | Docket: 69632702

Published

Centers, LLC with a notice of intent pursuant to section 766.106, Florida Statutes. The notice asserted a claim

Seduction Cosmetic Center Corp. v. Von Dunbar

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 15, 2025 | Docket: 69546354

Published

“claim for medical negligence” as defined in § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. Stat., or any action to collect

Ortiz v. Winn-Dixie, Inc., Travelers Insurance, and Sedgwick CMS

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 23, 2024 | Docket: 69491845

Published

for the term “to have the same meaning in section 766.106(4)”); Hearndon, 767 So. 2d at 1184–85 (considering

North Shore Medical Center v. Clara Navarro, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Mauricio Polifroni

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 10, 2024 | Docket: 68929416

Published

is impermissible in damages arbitration. See § 766.106(3)(b)3, Fla. Stat. (an offer to arbitrate means

University of Miami, etc. v. Shanay Hall Jones, etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 15, 2024 | Docket: 68092091

Published

all of Jones’s pre-suit requirements under section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2023).2 The University

Fagan v. Jackson County Hospital District, Jackson Hospital

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 14, 2024 | Docket: 68251065

Published

claimants); § 766.106(3) (applying them to defendants). And it is true that section 766.106(4) authorizes

ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/SUNBELT, INC. D/B/A FLORIDA HOSPITAL ALTAMONTE AND WILLIAM HUETHER, III, M.D. vs SALLY MACHALEK AND MATTHEW APTER, M.D.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 6, 2023 | Docket: 68034155

Published

17, 2019 (as tolled ninety days pursuant to section 766.106(4) and extended an additional ninety days by

WINNIEFRED RAMSAY vs SOUTH LAKE HOSPITAL, KERRY L. NEALL, M.D., AND HOLLY B. SAUNDERS, M.D.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 17, 2023 | Docket: 65664774

Published

failure to render, medical care or services.” § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2015); accord § 95.11(4)(b)

In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.070 and 1.650

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 19, 2023 | Docket: 66741678

Published

litigation by any of the means provided in section 766.106(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2022), as opposed

Thomas B. Ireland v. Bill Prummell

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Nov 14, 2022 | Docket: 65751922

Published

in medical mal- practice actions. Fla. Stat. § 766.106(2). Here, it is undisputed that Ireland’s Estate

ESTHER MARIN-CASARIEGO, M.D. v. SOPHIA LINALE

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 10, 2022 | Docket: 65745125

Published

definition, the complaint sounds in malpractice.”). § 766.106(1)(a). Respondents, who are petitioners’ pediatric

MARIA MARTINEZ v. DON JOHN PEREZ-ORTIZ, M. D. AND THE PEREZ EYE CENTER, P. L.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 23, 2022 | Docket: 65370802

Published

Ortiz and Perez Eye Center on July 27, 2017. See § 766.106(2)(a). Neither of the notices of intent were served

SRINIVAS RAO DONTINENI, M.D. vs PATRICIA SANDERSON, JOSEPH BOULAY, M.D., ALL STAR RECRUITING LOCUMS, LLC, ANGELO FERNANDES, M.D., ARVIND KUMAR, M.D., BREVARD INTERNAL MEDICINE & WALK IN CLINIC, PLLC, ET AL.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 1, 2022 | Docket: 68035384

Published

mailing him notice of her intent to sue. See § 766.106(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2018). This notice included

William Boyle v. Myles Rubin Samotin, M.D.

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 2022 | Docket: 63252832

Published

statutory presuit notice requirement that section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2018), imposes on a claimant

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, etc. v. SHANAY HALL JONES, etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 20, 2022 | Docket: 63249353

Published

516; Herber, 984 So. 2d at 662. 2 See § 766.106(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2017); § 766.203(2), Fla. Stat

MARTIN MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a CLEVELAND CLINIC MARTIN HEALTH v. VINCENT GORHAM, III

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 20, 2022 | Docket: 63249411

Published

initiate litigation for medical negligence.” § 766.106(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2019). These pre-suit requirements

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI D/B/A BASCOM PALMER EYE INSTITUTE v. CHARLES J. BLOOMER

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 26, 2022 | Docket: 62628737

Published

failure to render, medical care or services.” § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2021). However, “[m]erely

ALFRED RHINER v. TAKASHI KOYAMA, DMD

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 8, 2021 | Docket: 60368611

Published

1 Section 766.106(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2016), provides in

In Re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.650

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 8, 2021 | Docket: 59804370

Published

create consistency with the current version of section 766.106(6), Florida Statutes (2020), regarding informal

DIAL 4 CARE, INC. v. ELIJAH BRINSON

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 17, 2021 | Docket: 59739251

Published

initiate litigation on Dial 4 Care, pursuant to section 766.106, Florida Statutes. The notice contained a

SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT v. ROBERTO CORTES, as Personal Representative of the Estate of DANIELA CORTES

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 20, 2020 | Docket: 17178715

Published

failure to render, medical care or services.” § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016).

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure - 2019 Regular-Cycle Report

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 16, 2020 | Docket: 17073632

Published

comply with the good faith requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes. (B)

NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT d/b/a BROWARD HEALTH CORAL SPRINGS v. MICHAEL SLUSHER

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 21, 2019 | Docket: 16090305

Published

of Florida’s medical malpractice statute, section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2019), requires dismissal

JAMES J. MC MANUS v. DR. G. A. GAMEZ

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 7, 2019 | Docket: 16025077

Published

with the presuit requirements set forth in section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes (2013).

Specialty Hospital-Gainesville, Inc. v. Charles Barth

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 15, 2019 | Docket: 15916397

Published

failure to render, medical care or services.” § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2018). To

STUART P. SEIDER, an Individual, JEFFREY A. STEVENS, an Individual and SEIDER AND STEVENS, P.A. v. JARRED LEIBNER, an Individual

266 So. 3d 1189

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 27, 2019 | Docket: 14809065

Published

bringing a medical malpractice action under section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2017). We agree, grant the

In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases—report No. 17-02

228 So. 3d 531, 2017 WL 4985514

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 2, 2017 | Docket: 6184677

Published

claims for medical malpractice as defined by F.S. 766.106(1) (1989). 2. This instruction is intended

Martin v. Jorge Jose Sowers, M.D.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 30, 2017 | Docket: 6145454

Published

notices as required under Florida Statute Section 766.106 (2010), Martin and her husband and son filed

2D16-2122 / St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc. v. Doe

208 So. 3d 1200, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 304

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 13, 2017 | Docket: 4567390

Published

whether grounded in tort or in contract,” and section 766.106(l)(a) defines a claim for medical malpractice

Klemish v. Villacastin

216 So. 3d 14, 2016 WL 3768981, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 10851

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 15, 2016 | Docket: 4115974

Published

malpractice as defined in Florida Statutes Section 766,106, or any similar successor law, or any. claim

Townes v. National Deaf Academy, LLC

197 So. 3d 1130, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 9383, 2016 WL 3381809

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 17, 2016 | Docket: 3082126

Published

reasons explained below, we reverse. 'Section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2008), “imposes presuit

Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Quorum Management Corp.

186 F. Supp. 3d 1307, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70274, 2016 WL 2937461

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: May 13, 2016 | Docket: 64308789

Published

malpractice presuit notice requirements (see Fla. Stat. § 766.106) apply to pharmacies and pharmacists. Both decisions

Bove v. Naples HMA, LLC

196 So. 3d 411, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5047, 2016 WL 1273260

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 1, 2016 | Docket: 3050108

Published

statute of limitations period. She relies on section 766.106(4), Florida Statutes (2013), to argue that

Mohamad R. Samiian, M.D., individually etc. v. First Professionals Insurance etc.

180 So. 3d 190, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 17927, 2015 WL 7731744

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 1, 2015 | Docket: 3017313

Published

his children and the estate, pursuant to section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes (2003), the personal representative

Weaver v. Myers

170 So. 3d 873, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10952, 2015 WL 4429170

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 21, 2015 | Docket: 60249524

Published

the parties to investigate the claim presuit. § 766.106(3), Fla. Stat. (2013). Prior to the 2013 amendments

Curtis v. Tower Hill Prime Insurance Co.

154 So. 3d 1193, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 398, 2015 WL 159254

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 14, 2015 | Docket: 2624301

Published

presuit investigation period following the notice. § 766.106(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014). The neutral evaluation

Salazar v. Coello

154 So. 3d 430, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20403, 2014 WL 7156859

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 17, 2014 | Docket: 2616006

Published

those Defendants/Appellees was timely under Section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2009). We note that the

Byrnes v. Small

60 F. Supp. 3d 1284, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161770, 2014 WL 6467305

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Nov 18, 2014 | Docket: 64298464

Published

tolling period provided under Florida Statutes § 766.106(4). This argument fails for at least two reasons

Winter Haven Hospital, Inc. v. Liles

148 So. 3d 507, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 15616, 2014 WL 5002115

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 8, 2014 | Docket: 1433141

Published

provisions of chapter 766. We disagree. Section 766.106(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), defines a “[cjlaim

Steve Buck v. Columbia Hospital Corporation of South Broward

147 So. 3d 604, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 14003, 2014 WL 4426480

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 10, 2014 | Docket: 1185363

Published

causes of action in medical negligence cases. Section 766.106 defines a “ ‘[c]laim for medical negligence’

Young v. Naples Community Hospital, Inc.

129 So. 3d 456, 2014 WL 26040, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 71

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 3, 2014 | Docket: 60237405

Published

within the two years required by statute. See § 766.106, Fla. Stat. (2006).4 The trial court denied the

Murphy v. Dulay

975 F. Supp. 2d 1200, 2013 WL 5498140, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144968

District Court, N.D. Florida | Filed: Sep 25, 2013 | Docket: 65994615

Published

comply with specific presuit requirements. See § 766.106, Fla. Stat.1 One presuit requirement is this:

Lakeland Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Pilgrim

107 So. 3d 505, 2013 WL 561464, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 2315

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 15, 2013 | Docket: 60228691

Published

benefit of the presuit screening requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes, is whether the defendant

Patrick v. Gatien

65 So. 3d 42, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 7156, 2011 WL 1879201

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 18, 2011 | Docket: 60301712

Published

seek to negotiate a resolution of the claim. See § 766.106(3), Fla. Stat. (2006). “Upon receiving notice

GalenCare, Inc. v. Mosley

59 So. 3d 138, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1514, 2011 WL 439467

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 9, 2011 | Docket: 60299610

Published

presuit notice requirement is set forth in section 766.106. “After completion of presuit investigation

HOLMES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. Wirth

49 So. 3d 802, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 17190, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2505

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 12, 2010 | Docket: 2401005

Published

with a notice of intent to initiate litigation. § 766.106(2)(a). This notice must be corroborated with a

Dirga v. Butler

39 So. 3d 388, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 8934, 2010 WL 2472489

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 21, 2010 | Docket: 2410784

Published

malpractice actions are entitled to presuit notice. § 766.106(2), Fla. Stat. (2003). As explained by the supreme

Variety Children's Hospital v. Boice

27 So. 3d 788, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 1571, 2010 WL 532839

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 17, 2010 | Docket: 2409262

Published

of their minor child's estate. Pursuant to section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2007), the Boices served

Derespina v. North Broward Hospital District

19 So. 3d 1128, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 15541, 2009 WL 3271360

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 2009 | Docket: 1651075

Published

defendant of her intent to initiate litigation. § 766.106(2). Section 766.203(2) requires that the notice

Derespina v. North Broward Hospital District

19 So. 3d 1128, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 15541, 2009 WL 3271360

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 2009 | Docket: 1651075

Published

defendant of her intent to initiate litigation. § 766.106(2). Section 766.203(2) requires that the notice

Wood v. Virgo

3 So. 3d 430, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1441, 2009 WL 416524

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 20, 2009 | Docket: 60289177

Published

applicable to the procedures prescribed by section 766.106 for presuit screening of medical malpractice

Stubbs v. Plantation General Hospital Ltd. Partnership

988 So. 2d 683, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 11585, 2008 WL 2907995

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 30, 2008 | Docket: 64855493

Published

not been submitted to pre-suit screening. See § 766.106, Fla. Stat. (2005). Upon review, the trial court

LEON MEDICAL CENTERS, INC. v. Martell

972 So. 2d 1103, 2008 WL 239029

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 30, 2008 | Docket: 1159170

Published

for the wrongful death of George Martell. See § 766.106(2), Fla. Stat. (2004).[1] The defendants sent

Rogers v. Chicago Insurance Co.

964 So. 2d 280, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 15183, 2007 WL 2781017

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 26, 2007 | Docket: 64852162

Published

undertake the necessary investigation pursuant to section 766.106, Florida Statutes, and settled a claim which

Robinson v. Scott

974 So. 2d 1090, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 10373, 2007 WL 1931308

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 5, 2007 | Docket: 64853927

Published

with the presuit discovery requirements of Section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2006). Because we find that

White v. Tequesta HMA, Inc.

945 So. 2d 659, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 425, 2007 WL 101192

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 17, 2007 | Docket: 64848451

Published

the presuit *660screening requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2005). WARNER, POLEN and

Phillips v. Cook

927 So. 2d 130, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5748, 2006 WL 1040352

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 2006 | Docket: 64844207

Published

screening requirements of the Florida Statutes. See § 766.106, Fla. Stat. (2005). Concluding that the trial

Toca v. Olivares

882 So. 2d 465, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13427, 2004 WL 2003363

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 9, 2004 | Docket: 64832558

Published

appellee, Sonia Olivares, D.D.S., pursuant to section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2002). On June 24, 2003

Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re the Medical Liability Claimant's Compensation Amendment

880 So. 2d 675, 29 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 395, 2004 Fla. LEXIS 1008

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 15, 2004 | Docket: 64832263

Published

all prospective defendants of the claims. See § 766.106, Fla. Stat. (2003). At times, it is often difficult

Wolford v. Boone

874 So. 2d 1207, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 6703, 2004 WL 1074113

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 14, 2004 | Docket: 64831003

Published

the court to strike respondents’ answer, and section 766.106(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), justified dismissal

Creel v. Danisi

868 So. 2d 603, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2934, 2004 WL 438554

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 11, 2004 | Docket: 64828976

Published

affects the applicable statute of limitations. Section 766.106(4), Florida Statutes (1999), provides: The

Cora Health Services, Inc. v. Steinbronn

867 So. 2d 587, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2941, 2004 WL 401531

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 5, 2004 | Docket: 64828655

Published

a medical malpractice claimant pursuant to section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes (2000). Steinbronn was

Cortes v. Williams

850 So. 2d 634, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 11113, 2003 WL 21705239

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 24, 2003 | Docket: 64824127

Published

under the pre-suit notice requirements of section 766.106(4), Florida Statutes. Petitioner asserts the

Nichols v. Preiser

849 So. 2d 478, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 10883, 2003 WL 21673001

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 18, 2003 | Docket: 64823977

Published

filed a notice of intent to sue as required by section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1997). The notice did not

Central Dade Malpractice Trust Fund v. Shapiro

827 So. 2d 1032, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 13928, 2002 WL 31114135

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 25, 2002 | Docket: 64818051

Published

he had previously received no less than three § 766.106(2) -notices of intent, which he had duly transmitted

Solomon v. Well Care HMO, Inc.

822 So. 2d 543, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 10332, 2002 WL 1625568

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 24, 2002 | Docket: 64816639

Published

claims for medical malpractice as defined in section 766.106(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2000), as they are

Lane v. Health Options, Inc.

796 So. 2d 1234, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 14619, 2001 WL 1205854

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 10, 2001 | Docket: 64809383

Published

failure to render, medical care or services.” § 766.106(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1999). There are no allegations

Grau v. Wells

795 So. 2d 988, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10354, 2001 WL 830585

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 25, 2001 | Docket: 64809001

Published

pleadings. Id. Notwithstanding section 766.206(3), section 766.106(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1999) provides that

Preston v. HEALTH CARE CORP. OF AMERICA

785 So. 2d 570, 2001 WL 321249

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 4, 2001 | Docket: 1510130

Published

comply with the pre-suit requirements under section 766.106 of the Malpractice Act. It is undisputed that

Torrey v. Leesburg Regional Medical Center

796 So. 2d 544, 2001 WL 201965

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 2, 2001 | Docket: 1672399

Published

to comply with the presuit requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes. In our previous opinion

Gutierrez v. Peralta

785 So. 2d 536, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1806, 2001 WL 166838

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 21, 2001 | Docket: 64805432

Published

serve a notice of intent to sue pursuant to section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes (1999). The trial court

Woodall v. Hillsborough County Hospital Authority

778 So. 2d 320, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16815, 2000 WL 1867639

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 22, 2000 | Docket: 64803753

Published

DANAHY, PAUL W., (Senior) Judge, Concur. . Section 766.106(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), provides, in

Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure

773 So. 2d 1098, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 2312, 2000 WL 1472356

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 5, 2000 | Docket: 64802529

Published

tolling provisions of section 766.104(2) and section 766.106(4), Florida Statutes (1989), and Florida Rule

Walker-White v. Pezzullo-Burgs

765 So. 2d 897, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10764, 2000 WL 1199445

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 23, 2000 | Docket: 64799905

Published

Associates, P.A. (appellees) for damages under section 766.106 et seq., and sections 766.201-.212, Florida

Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports | Filed: Jul 9, 1999 | Docket: 3258333

Published

received by the Department of Health under section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1998 Supplement), confidential

Nolan v. Turner

737 So. 2d 579, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 8354, 1999 WL 415293

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 23, 1999 | Docket: 64789443

Published

statements under section 766.106(7)(a), the production of documents and things under section 766.106(7)(b), or

Garay v. Colony Springs Medical Center, Inc.

731 So. 2d 849, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 6037, 1999 WL 294456

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 12, 1999 | Docket: 64788026

Published

period, was adequate pre-suit notice under section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1996). Attorney Heath’s

Hankey v. Yarian

719 So. 2d 987, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 13538, 1998 WL 736599

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 23, 1998 | Docket: 64783833

Published

litigation against the defendants. Pursuant to section 766.106, Florida Statutes, the defendants had 90 days

Leon v. Mercy Hospital, Inc.

712 So. 2d 1267, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9066, 1998 WL 405944

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 22, 1998 | Docket: 64781620

Published

defendant-appellee’s previous demand for arbitration under section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1991), to be a nullity,

Nowling v. Walton Regional Hospital

711 So. 2d 631, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5871, 1998 WL 264468

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 27, 1998 | Docket: 64781152

Published

intent to initiate litigation required by section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes, and thereafter filed

Standard Jury Instructions—Civil Cases—No. 97-1

700 So. 2d 379, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 641, 1997 Fla. LEXIS 1532, 1997 WL 637664

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 16, 1997 | Docket: 64776159

Published

was filed. Fla. Stat. § 95.11(4)(b); Fla. Stat. § 766.106; Fla. Stat. § 766.104(2). Comment on 3.8g This

Stewart v. Price

704 So. 2d 594, 1997 WL 611526

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 7, 1997 | Docket: 64778343

Published

claim for medical malpractice as defined in section 766.106(1). Because the lower court found that Pittman’s

Shands Teaching Hospital & Clinics, Inc. v. Peterson

695 So. 2d 906, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6993, 1997 WL 340337

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 23, 1997 | Docket: 64774363

Published

comply with pre-suit notice requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes. Petitioner asserts the notice

Dauphinee v. Wilstrup

696 So. 2d 388, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5618, 1997 WL 271310

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 23, 1997 | Docket: 64774708

Published

purpose pursuant to the express provisions of section 766.106(5), Florida Statutes: No statement, discussion

Champion v. Cox

689 So. 2d 365, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1045, 1997 WL 63179

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 18, 1997 | Docket: 64771633

Published

to serve notice of her claim as required by section 766.106, Florida Statutes, and that she had failed

Board of Regents v. Athey ex rel. Athey

694 So. 2d 46

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 31, 1997 | Docket: 64773852

Published

of intent to initiate actions pursuant to section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1989), for neurological

Platman v. Holmes Regional Medical Center, Inc.

683 So. 2d 671, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12785, 1996 WL 697824

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 6, 1996 | Docket: 64769383

Published

liability, Dr. Weare had faded to comply with section 766.106 and thus the offer to arbitrate was defective

Wilder v. Hillsborough County Hospital Authority

686 So. 2d 617, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11375, 1996 WL 629810

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 1, 1996 | Docket: 64770401

Published

to medical malpractice claims as set out in section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1993), and Florida Rule

Lowe ex rel. Lowe v. Pugh

682 So. 2d 1104, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2656, 1996 WL 120959

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 20, 1996 | Docket: 64768992

Published

intent to initiate litigation pursuant to section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes (1993), which they had

Pozniak v. Boswell

668 So. 2d 1121, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2187, 1996 WL 98836

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 8, 1996 | Docket: 64762779

Published

with the pre-suit discovery provisions of section 766.106, et. seq., Florida Statutes. The attorney for

Sawko v. Maurer

667 So. 2d 1022, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1472, 1996 WL 65090

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 16, 1996 | Docket: 64762252

Published

to comply with the pre-suit requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes, et seq. We elect to treat

Karr v. Sellers

668 So. 2d 629, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 240, 1996 WL 14053

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 17, 1996 | Docket: 64762620

Published

prior to filing suit, plaintiff, pursuant to section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1991), sent defendants a

Mogler v. Franzen

669 So. 2d 269, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 11660, 1995 WL 653269

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 8, 1995 | Docket: 64762850

Published

responded and offered to admit liability under section 766.106(3)(b)3, Florida Statutes (1993), and to submit

Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Kinsey

655 So. 2d 1191, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5342

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 18, 1995 | Docket: 64756672

Published

issues raised by appellees. The substance of section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1993), was originally enacted

Lucas v. Vizcay

638 So. 2d 159, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5665, 1994 WL 248030

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 10, 1994 | Docket: 64749092

Published

to comply with the notice requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1991). In the present case

Anderson ex rel. Anderson v. Lore

618 So. 2d 369, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 5689, 1993 WL 169182

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 21, 1993 | Docket: 64696276

Published

defendants/appellees complied with the provisions of section 766.106(3), Florida Statutes. The extraordinary remedy

Patry v. Capps

618 So. 2d 261, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3017, 1993 WL 75792

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 19, 1993 | Docket: 64696229

Published

to comply with the notice requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1991). We regret the harshness

Rub v. Williams

611 So. 2d 1328, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 464, 1993 WL 5679

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 12, 1993 | Docket: 64693393

Published

presuit screening process is privileged under section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1991) and rule 1.650, Florida

Jennings v. City of Homestead

609 So. 2d 669, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11767, 1992 WL 348459

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 24, 1992 | Docket: 64692581

Published

768.57, Florida Statutes, was transferred to section 766.106, Florida Statutes, in 1988. See Allen v. Orlando

Bliss v. Brodsky

604 So. 2d 923, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9591, 1992 WL 220521

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 11, 1992 | Docket: 64669578

Published

discovery under that statute which is currently section 766.106(5), Florida Statutes (1991). The information

Plemendon v. Fernandez

602 So. 2d 1379, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8957, 1992 WL 197849

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 19, 1992 | Docket: 64669158

Published

agree with this construction of the statute. Section 766.106(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), creates a comprehensive

Boyd v. Becker

603 So. 2d 1371, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8935, 1992 WL 197854

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 19, 1992 | Docket: 64669407

Published

day toll of the statute of limitations per section 766.106(4). There was no response from the doctor.

Farancz v. St. Mary's Hospital, Inc.

585 So. 2d 1151, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9125, 1991 WL 181523

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 18, 1991 | Docket: 64661608

Published

malpractice claim by a simple filing with the clerk. Section 766.106(4) expressly provides for a tolling of the

In re Amendment to Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.650(d)(2)

568 So. 2d 1273, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 561, 1990 Fla. LEXIS 1524, 1990 WL 166681

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 25, 1990 | Docket: 64654147

Published

Civil Procedure 1.650(d)(2) to conform with section 766.-106(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1989). * The existing

Baptist Hospital of Miami, Inc. v. Abaunza

563 So. 2d 174, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4246, 1990 WL 78573

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 12, 1990 | Docket: 64651188

Published

days. It appears that the trial court invoked section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1989), as well as section

Damus v. Parvez

556 So. 2d 1136, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2873, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6982, 1989 WL 149594

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 12, 1989 | Docket: 64648126

Published

granted; order quashed. . Dr. Damus relies on section 766.106(3)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), for the

Rhoades v. Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center

554 So. 2d 1188, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2838, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6862, 1989 WL 147946

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 8, 1989 | Docket: 64647388

Published

Transferred to section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.). . Transferred to section 766.106(2), Florida