Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Const. We quash Kukral and approve Stebilla. For the reasons expressed below, we hold that the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiffs' medical malpractice claim for their alleged failure to comply with the presuit investigation requirements of section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (1991)....

...tigation" to mean "that an attorney has reviewed the case against each and every potential defendant and has consulted with a medical expert and has obtained a written opinion from said expert." After completing the presuit investigation pursuant to section 766.203 and prior to filing a claim for medical malpractice, the claimant must notify each prospective defendant "of intent to initiate litigation for medical malpractice." Id. § 766.106(2). Section 766.203(2) requires that the claim be corroborated by a "verified written medical expert opinion" which must be furnished to the defendant. Upon receipt of the notice of intent, the defendant has ninety days to conduct its own presuit investigation. Id. § 766.203(3)....

...Before the defendant may deny the claimant's reasonable grounds for finding medical negligence, the defendant must provide the claimant with *281 a verified written medical expert opinion corroborating a lack of reasonable grounds to show a negligent injury. Id. § 766.203(3)(b)....

...As stated by the appellants in their brief: The expert opinion to be supplied is not one which delineates how the defendants were negligent. Section 766.104 refers to a written medical opinion "that there appears to be evidence of medical negligence." Section 766.203(2) provides that the medical expert opinion is for "corroboration of reasonable grounds to initiate medical negligence litigation." And § 766.205(1) specifically provides that the medical opinion need only corroborate that "there exi...

...There is no explanation in the record as to why the trial court reconsidered this ruling other than the fact that the subsequent motion was restyled. [2] In full, section 766.206, Florida Statutes (1995), provides: (1) After the completion of presuit investigation by the parties pursuant to s. 766.203 and any informal discovery pursuant to s....

...Then, subsequently, we notified you, on May 5th, May 19th, 1992, that you had not properly complied with the presuit screening. That was a letter from Glenn Falk to you. On June 19th, 1992, it was specified that you had not complied with the statute because you didn't give us a written medical expert opinion as required by 766.203(2)(b), and 766.203(4)....

...[13] The statutes at issue are two components recommended by the Task Force to address the medical liability insurance crisis: 1) a presuit investigation process to eliminate frivolous claims and 2) a voluntary arbitration process to encourage settlement of claims. Sections 766.203-.206 set out the presuit investigation procedure that both the claimant and defendant must follow before a medical negligence claim may be brought in court....

...The first step in the presuit investigation is for the claimant to determine whether reasonable grounds exist to believe that a defendant acted negligently in the claimant's care or treatment, and that this negligence caused the claimant's injury. § 766.203(2), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1988). Section 766.203(2) also requires that the medical negligence claim be corroborated by a "verified written medical expert opinion" before giving notice to a defendant. After the claimant has established the reasonable grounds to believe that negligence occurred, the defendant or defendant's insurer *193 is required to conduct a presuit investigation. § 766.203(3), Fla....

...§ 766.106(3)(a). Before the defendant may deny the claimant's reasonable grounds for finding medical negligence, the defendant must provide a verified written medical expert opinion corroborating a lack of reasonable grounds to show a negligent injury. § 766.203(3)(b)....

...gation to ascertain that there are reasonable grounds to believe that ... [a]ny named defendant in the litigation was negligent" (i.e., that there was a breach of a duty owed), and that such negligence "resulted in injury to the claimant" (damages). § 766.203(2), Fla....

...Those sections, if anything, demonstrate the Legislature's recognition of alternative methods. [21] The district court correctly noted that: Here, a defendant retains causation defenses and the claimant must demonstrate reasonable grounds to initiate medical negligence litigation, § 766.203(2), Fla....

...Even if the defendants' refusal to provide discovery in violation of the statutes did not waive the requirement of a written medical corroboration pursuant to what is now section 766.205(3) — and we do not see why it would not — it is clear from reading Chapter 766 in its entirety that the corroboration required by section 766.203(2), although statutorily required (in this case) to be provided at the same time as the actual filing of the notice of intent in February, 1990, is not part of that notice for jurisdictional purposes. See § 766.203(2)(b)....

...As stated by the appellants in their brief: The expert opinion to be supplied is not one which delineates how the defendants were negligent. Section 766.104 refers to a written medical opinion "that there appears to be evidence of medical negligence." Section 766.203(2) provides that the medical expert opinion is for "corroboration of reasonable grounds to initiate medical negligence litigation." And § 766.205(1) specifically provides that the medical opinion need only corroborate that "there exi...

...a bureaucratic agency. [4] No such onerous burden is imposed upon any other prospective tort claimant in Florida. REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. COWART and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Now codified as section 766.203, Fla....

...dering it." See id. The court applied the test set forth in Integrated Health Care Services, Inc. v. Lang-Redway, 840 So.2d 974, 977 (Fla. 2002), to determine whether a defendant is entitled to section 766.106 presuit screening requirements. Whether section 766.203 presuit requirements apply to a cause of action founded on another statutory right, such as section 393.13(3)(g) here, turns on whether the claim can be proved by showing a breach *372 of some standard of care other than the medical malpractice standard....

...(1997) (during 90-day presuit screening period prospective defendant and insurer shall conduct review to determine liability of defendant; at end of period defendant shall respond by rejecting claim, offering settlement, or admitting liability and arbitrating damages); and § 766.203(3), Fla.Stat....

...the hospital with documents requested which were not already in the hospital's possession. Such conduct does not constitute an unreasonable failure to cooperate. There remains the issue of whether the Ragoonanans' claim rests on a reasonable basis. Section 766.203(2) requires that Prior to issuing notification of intent to initiate medical malpractice litigation ......

...ar repose period because no allegation of fraudulent concealment has been raised in this case. [6] Section 766.201(2) provides that "[p]resuit investigation shall be mandatory and shall apply to all medical negligence claims and defenses." Likewise, section 766.203(2) provides that "[p]rior to issuing notification of intent to initiate medical malpractice litigation pursuant to s....

...r, Stuart for Respondent. DAMOORGIAN, J. In this timely petition for certiorari, Martin Memorial Medical Center seeks review of an order denying its motion to dismiss for failure to comply with statutory presuit screening requirements under sections 766.203 and 766.206, Florida Statutes (2004)....

...We grant certiorari because the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by failing to determine whether Ms. Herber conducted a good faith investigation and whether her claim rested on a reasonable basis. Further, failure to meet the requirements of a presuit investigation under section 766.203 results in irreparable harm....

...laim of medical negligence and one was never provided. [1] The time for Martin Memorial to conduct its presuit screening was extended until November 1, 2005. After conducting an investigation, Martin Memorial rejected *663 Herber's claim pursuant to section 766.203(3)....

...On remand, the trial court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether Ms. Herber's claim rests on a reasonable basis and whether the notice of intent to sue is in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements of §§ 766.201-212. Petition Granted. WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 766.203(2) provides that the institution of a medical malpractice action is conditioned upon the claimant's submission of a verified written medical expert opinion which corroborates reasonable grounds to support the claim of medical negligence. [2] Section 766.203(3) provides that the presuit investigation must be done in good faith and is used to ascertain whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant was negligent in care or treatment and such negligence caused injury to...

...a medical expert as defined in s. 766.202(5), at the time the response rejecting the claim is mailed, which statement shall corroborate reasonable grounds for lack of negligent injury sufficient to support the response denying negligent injury. *546 § 766.203, Fla....

...However, the discovery of the presence of a foreign body, such as a sponge, clamp, forceps, surgical needle, or other paraphernalia commonly used in surgical, examination, or diagnostic procedures shall be prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the health care provider. She maintains that section 766.203(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), does not require a written medical expert opinion as support for plaintiff's claim here, because the legislature has already determined that the defendant's alleged conduct is negligence per se....

...on requirements — medical opinion is presumably a necessary predicate to show that a foreign body has indeed been left at a surgical site. Without this predicate and without corroboration that "[s]uch negligence resulted in injury to the claimant," section 766.203(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), the statutory requirements have not been met....

...Danilo Adolfo Sanchez; and Sebring Emergency Physicians, LLC (collectively referred to as the appellees). In granting the appellees' motions to dismiss, the trial court determined that the appellants failed to comply with the presuit requirements of section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (2006), by failing to submit a corroborating affidavit from a duly qualified medical expert....

...Oliveros's presentation to the emergency room with an evolving cerebral bleed that ultimately resulted in a stroke. In October 2006, before filing their complaint in the trial court, the appellants served the appellees with a notice of intent to sue. In an attempt to comply with the presuit requirements of section 766.203(2), the appellants listed Dr. Sichewski as their expert in emergency medicine. The appellants attached an affidavit from Dr. Sichewski corroborating that there existed reasonable grounds for the appellants' claim of medical malpractice. *875 See § 766.203(2)....

...In April 2007, the appellants filed their complaint in the trial court. Just prior to trial in 2009, the appellees filed motions for leave to amend their answers and affirmative defenses and motions to dismiss, arguing that the appellants failed to comply with the presuit corroborating affidavit requirement in section 766.203(2) because Dr....

...Ingersoll is directly applicable to the facts of this case. When the appellees filed their separate answers and affirmative defenses in 2007, none of the appellees specifically and with particularity denied that the appellants' expert's corroborating affidavit complied with section 766.203(2)....

...Boemi, 29 So.3d 1105, 1108 (Fla. 2010) (holding that a question of law arising from undisputed facts is reviewed de novo). In reviewing this issue, we must *877 consider all facts in the light most favorable to the appellants. See Holden, 39 So.3d at 400. Section 766.203(2) requires a corroborating affidavit from a medical expert as defined in section 766.202(6)....

...s unnecessary given our ruling on the waiver issue. IV. Conclusion By failing to investigate and plead specifically and with particularity the issue of the appellants' alleged failure to comply with the presuit corroborating affidavit requirement in section 766.203(2), the appellees waived the issue....

...Accordingly, we reverse the orders dismissing the appellants' complaint and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ALTENBERND and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur. NOTES [1] Contrary to the appellees' argument, Dr. Sichewski's opinion was subject to discovery during the presuit investigation period. See § 766.203(4) ("The medical expert opinions required by this [presuit investigation] section are subject to discovery.")....

...edical Negligence Litigation in accordance with section 766.106, Florida Statutes. Along with the Notice of Intent, Apostolico provided the affidavit of Miriam Headley, a registered nurse, to corroborate the medical negligence action, as required by section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (2002)....

...m. ORMC inquired during presuit discovery whether Apostolico intended to have this matter reviewed by a cardiologist in order to determine whether there were reasonable grounds to pursue the claim in satisfaction of the investigation requirements of section 766.203(2)....

...Specifically, the trial court found that a nurse does not possess the medical training or expertise to determine cause of death, and, therefore, concluded that Apostolico failed to conduct a reasonable presuit investigation since she did not satisfy the causation prong of section 766.203(2)....

...Maddux, 645 So.2d 544, 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)). "Instead, the presuit notice and screening statute should be construed in a manner that favors access to courts." Id. (citing Patry v. Capps, 633 So.2d 9, 13 (Fla.1994)). ORMC correctly observes that section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (2002), provides that a claimant must establish both negligence and causation to support a claim for medical negligence....

...(2002) ("any action for recovery of damages based on the death or personal injury of any person in which it is alleged that such death or injury resulted from the negligence of a health care provider") (emphasis added). Further, both elements of negligence and causation must be corroborated by a qualified expert. § 766.203(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). Specifically, section 766.203(2) provides: Prior to issuing notification of intent to initiate medical malpractice litigation pursuant to s....

...ied written medical expert opinion from a medical expert as defined in s. 766.202(5), at the time the notice of intent to initiate litigation is mailed, which statement shall corroborate reasonable grounds to support the claim of medical negligence. § 766.203(2), Fla....

...ORMC concludes that because nurses cannot diagnose patients or prescribe treatment plans for their patients, they do not have the ability to determine a patient's cause of death, especially in a patient such as Virgil, who suffered from several serious cardiac and neurological conditions. While section 766.203(2) directs the claimant to conduct an investigation to ascertain that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant was negligent, it does not require the claimant to establish the defendant's negligence or prove its case during the presuit screening process. Maldonado v. EMSA Ltd. P'ship, 645 So.2d 86, 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Section 766.203(2) simply requires a corroborating opinion from a medical expert, as defined in section 766.202(5); it does not require a corroborating opinion from a medical expert as more narrowly defined by section 766.102(6)....

...and operation, if approved by joint committee of Board of Nursing and Board of Medicine members). Under the Medical Malpractice Act, a claimant must establish both negligence and causation to support a claim for medical negligence. See §§ 766.102, 766.203, Fla....

...al expert, defined under the relevant statute, as "a person " (not a physician), who holds a health care professional degree from a university or college (not a medical degree) or skill upon the subject which he is asked to provide an opinion. See §§ 766.203(2), 766.205(5), Fla....

...ess to courts. Patry v. Capps, 633 So.2d 9, 13 (Fla.1994). [4] The 2002 version of section 766.102(6), Florida Statutes, does not delineate the requisite qualifications of the medical expert offering a presuit affidavit. Instead, the 2002 version of section 766.203(2) provides, in pertinent part, that "[c]orroboration of reasonable grounds to initiate medical negligence litigation shall be provided by the claimant's submission of a verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert as defined in s....

...the insurer under section 766.206, Florida Statutes (1989). We affirm. In August 1990, pursuant to section 766.106, Mrs. Brooker filed a notice of intent to initiate malpractice litigation against Dr. Duffy for the death of her husband. Pursuant to section 766.203(2), the notice was accompanied by the four page affidavit of Dr....

...That I am a medical expert as defined by Florida Statute 766.202(5); 2. That my medical opinion based upon review of the claim made by RONALD BROOKER, DECEASED, against PATRICK A. DUFFY, M.D. corroborates reasonable grounds for lack of negligent injury pursuant to Florida Statute 766.203(3); 3. That I have not rendered any previous medical opinion which has been disqualified pursuant to Florida Statute 766.203(4); I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITY....

...ttested to. My opinions have not deviated or changed any from the opinion rendered on December 11, 1990. At the hearing on the motion, the trial judge instructed the parties that there were two issues (whether Edgerton's statement *541 complied with section 766.203(3), and whether a reasonable investigation was made by the insurance company and/or by Edgerton) and that Brooker had the burden of making out a prima facie case under the statute, at which time the burden of going forward would shift to the defendant....

...y." Section 766.104(2) provides for a 90-day extension of the statute of limitations "to allow the reasonable investigation required by subsection (1)." Section 766.106(2) requires the claimant, after completing the presuit investigation pursuant to section 766.203 and prior to filing a claim for medical malpractice, to notify each prospective defendant "of intent to initiate litigation for medical malpractice." Section 766.106(3)(a) provides that no suit may be filed for a period of 90 days aft...

...This offer may be made contingent upon a limit of general damages. Section 766.106(3)(c) requires that the response be provided by certified mail, and provides that failure to reply to the notice *544 within the 90-day period "shall be deemed a final rejection of the claim for purposes of this section." Section 766.203(2) requires the claimant to conduct an investigation prior to issuing the notice of intent to initiate litigation, to ascertain that there are reasonable grounds to believe that: (a) Any named defendant in the litigation was negligent in the care and treatment of the claimant; and (b) Such negligence resulted in injury to the claimant. Section 766.203(3) requires the defendant or the insurer to conduct an investigation prior to issuing its response, to ascertain whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that: (a) The defendant was negligent in the care or treatment of the claimant; and (b) Such negligence resulted in injury to the claimant....

...Section 766.202(4) defines "investigation" to mean "that an attorney has reviewed the case against each and every potential defendant and has consulted with a medical expert and has obtained a written opinion from said expert." The presuit investigations must be "verifiable," section 766.201(2)(a). Section 766.203(2) also requires the claimant to provide "corroboration of reasonable grounds to initiate medical negligence litigation" by submission of "a verified written medical expert opinion" at the time the notice of intent to sue is mailed, "which statement shall corroborate reasonable grounds to support the claim of medical negligence." [2] Section 766.203(3) requires that "corroboration of lack of reasonable grounds for medical negligence litigation" be provided with any response rejecting the claim, by submission of "a verified written medical expert opinion" at the time the response...

...earing as amicus curiae in this case on the side of appellee, argue that "corroborate" has a plain, ordinary, and obvious meaning, citing The American Heritage Desk Dictionary (1981) and Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition (1979). It contends that section 766.203(3) requires that the medical expert's "corroborating" statement contain "additional or supplemental information which strengthens the conclusions offered by the medical expert." It asserts that Dr. Edgerton's statement did not comply with the requirements of section 766.203(3) because it contained no additional facts or circumstances to confirm his "conclusory allegations." We agree that the Florida Legislature contemplated the type of "corroboration" urged by the Academy when it attempted to reform the...

...ufficiently indicate that the defendant doctor did not deviate from the standard of care, or that the defendant doctor was not liable for the claimant's injury, or that the claimant suffered no injury. At oral argument, Brooker's counsel argued that section 766.203(3) requires the corroborating statement to affirm that the medical expert has reviewed the medical records and has concluded that the defendant doctor did not practice below the medical standard of care, or that the defendant doctor did not cause the claimant's injury. *546 Later, he conceded that the specific language of section 766.203 requires only that the verified written corroborating statement attest that there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant doctor was not negligent. We interpret sections 766.203(2) and 766.203(3) to require that the "corroboration" statements outline the factual basis for the medical experts' opinions, in keeping with the legislative purpose to permit early evaluation of the merit of claims and defenses and thereby encourage meaningful presuit negotiations. Dr. Edgerton's statement clearly did not satisfy the requirements of section 766.203(3), and did not indicate that a reasonable investigation had been conducted prior to issuance of the response denying the claim....

...Stebilla, 604 So.2d 487 (Fla. 1992). [3] If no written response rejecting the claim is sent within the 90-day period, the claim is deemed rejected by operation of section 766.106(3)(c). If no written response rejecting the claim is sent, the "corroboration" requirement of section 766.203(3) is not activated....

...In an attempt to alleviate these problems, the Legislature *977 structured a statutory scheme that would encourage the early settlement of meritorious claims while screening out frivolous claims. See ch. 88-1, § 48, at 164, Laws of Fla. Pursuant to section 766.203(1), presuit investigation requirements apply to all medical negligence claims, a term which is defined as "medical malpractice, whether grounded in tort or in contract." § 766.202(6), Fla....

...ied written medical expert opinion from a medical expert as defined in s. 766.202(5), at the time the notice of intent to initiate litigation is mailed, which statement shall corroborate reasonable grounds to support the claim of medical negligence. § 766.203(1)-(2), Fla....

...NOTES [1] Bon Secours is the only defendant involved in the petition before this Court. [2] The term "prospective defendant" is not defined in the statute. [3] Section 766.106 provides in relevant part: (2) After completion of presuit investigation pursuant to s. 766.203 and prior to filing a claim for medical malpractice, a claimant shall notify each prospective defendant and, if any prospective defendant is a health care provider licensed under chapter 458 [relating to physicians], chapter 459 [relating...

...Respondents filed their complaint against petitioners in December 1993, alleging that both petitioners were medically negligent in the manner described in their presuit notices. In their answers, each petitioner raised as an affirmative defense that respondents had failed to corroborate their claim as required by section 766.203(3), Florida Statutes (1991), because Dr....

...Sections 766.201 through 766.206 set forth more detailed requirements for the presuit investigation and notice. Relevant to the instant action, section 766.202(4) requires the claimant's attorney to consult with and obtain an opinion from a medical expert. Further, section 766.203(2) requires that prior to the claimant issuing the notice of intent to initiate medical malpractice litigation pursuant to section 766.106, the claimant's presuit investigation must ascertain that there are reasonable grounds to belie...

...statement shall corroborate reasonable grounds to support the claim of medical negligence. Section 766.202(5) defines "medical expert" in a manner which provides two alternative bases for a person to qualify to render a medical expert opinion under section 766.203(2)(b)....

...of special health care knowledge or skill about the subject upon which he is called to testify or provide an opinion. § 766.202(5), Fla. Stat. (1991)(emphasis added). III Petitioners argue that respondents failed to comply with the requirements of section 766.203(2) to obtain from a medical expert, as defined in section 766.202(5), a verified written medical opinion corroborating reasonable grounds to believe that petitioners were negligent in their care or treatment of the claimant....

...uit investigation medical expert than the standard for admitting expert testimony at trial. Since their expert clearly met the requirements to testify at trial, they assert it would be ludicrous to rule that he cannot give an opinion for purposes of section 766.203(2)....

...Clare was unnecessary and not indicated for injuries such as hers. She then initiated presuit proceedings with FOI. In support of her claim, Lynch submitted, as the requisite "[c]orroboration of reasonable grounds to initiate medical negligence litigation" under section 766.203(2), the written affidavit of Dr....

...the presuit requirements of chapter 766. Therefore, we may properly review the trial court's ruling by certiorari. Turning to the merits, we note that chapter 766 outlines an extensive presuit procedure applicable to all actions for medical malpractice. Section 766.203 requires the claimant to conduct a presuit investigation to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to initiate a medical negligence action. As part of that presuit investigation, section 766.203(2) requires that the claimant provide "[c]orroboration of reasonable grounds to initiate medical negligence litigation," including "submission of a verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert as defined in s....

...d 5) by negligently training and credentialing the nursing staff member who primarily cared for Mr. Rhodin on the evening of April 19, 2009. Simply stated, the complaint alleged negligent nursing care that caused injury to Mr. Rhodin. As required by section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (2009), respondents filed the affidavit of Dr....

...Before issuing notice, however, a claimant must "ascertain that there are reasonable grounds to believe that . . . [a]ny named defendant in the litigation was negligent in the care or treatment of the claimant; and . . . [s]uch negligence resulted in injury to the claimant." § 766.203(2), Fla....

...(2009); see Archer v. Maddux, 645 So.2d 544, 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) ("The statute calls for medical corroboration not only of negligence but also of injury in consequence."). The dispute here focuses upon whether respondents satisfied the requirements of section 766.203(2): *116 Corroboration of reasonable grounds to initiate medical negligence litigation shall be provided by the claimant's submission of a verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert as defined in s....

...n and treatment and failing to notify the treating physician about the patient's worsening condition. In determining whether the trial court complied with the essential requirements of law in construing the presuit notice requirements, we begin with section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes, which requires written corroboration by "a medical expert as defined in s....

...ceased practicing medicine and was no longer licensed). That is, nurse Byrne's *119 corroborating opinion provided "reasonable grounds" to believe petitioner's nursing negligence resulted in Mr. Rhodin's injury. See Apostolico, 871 So.2d at 288-89. Section 766.203 requires just that, not proof after a mini-trial of actual malpractice on the facts presented. Dr. Byrne is not disqualified to offer the threshold opinion. 2. Whether a Prior Opinion Was "Disqualified" A corroborating expert must disclose her prior disqualified opinions pursuant to section 766.203(4), Florida Statutes (2009), which states: (4) PRESUIT MEDICAL EXPERT OPINION.—The medical expert opinions required by this section are subject to discovery....

...Moser, 106 So.3d 474, 475 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). This exception is based on the purpose of the FMMA: to facilitate settlement and avoid baseless claims. Id. When a plaintiff files a medical malpractice action but does not satisfy the presuit notice requirements set forth in section 766.203(2), the defendant suffers a material injury that cannot be remedied in a postjudgment appeal....

...the claimant's care or treatment and that this negligence caused the claimant's injury." Kukral, 679 So.2d at 280. This requires both investigation and corroboration of the results of the investigation by "a verified written medical expert opinion." § 766.203(2), Fla....

...(2004) (providing that as to a nurse practitioner an expert opinion must be rendered by a licensed physician who otherwise qualifies as an expert witness and who "by reason of active clinical practice or instruction of students, has knowledge of the applicable standard of care for ... nurse practitioners"); see also § 766.203(2), Fla....

...on of the claim against her from this suit. See § 766.206(2), Fla. Stat. (2002) (authorizing dismissal of actions predicated on notices of intent not in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements of sections 766.201 through 766.212); § 766.203(2), Fla....

...are or treatment of the plaintiff. Thus, there was no confirmation that plaintiffs had conducted a reasonable investigation as to this defendant or that there existed "reasonable grounds to initiate medical negligence litigation" against this nurse. § 766.203(2), Fla....

...Accordingly, the order under review is affirmed. FLETCHER and WELLS, JJ., concur. CORTIÑAS, J. (dissenting). This appeal involves the sufficiency of plaintiffs' pre-suit notice and affidavit to inform nurse Jessica Wang of "reasonable grounds" for a claim of medical negligence under Section 766.203, Florida Statutes (2000). Section 766.203, Florida Statutes (2000) provides: (2) Presuit investigation by claimant....

...that her "follow up plans for Winston Largie were appropriate and within the applicable standard of care." I respectfully dissent as I believe that the notice and affidavit provided by plaintiffs were sufficient to meet the statutory requirements of Section 766.203, Florida Statutes (2000)....

...construed in a manner that favors access to the courts. Maldonado, 645 So.2d at 90. I believe that the reasoning and holding in Maldonado apply to the instant case and necessitate a finding that Mr. Largie complied with the statutory requirements of Section 766.203, Florida Statutes (2000)....

...claim, she would have been unable to provide such a responsive affidavit. Our reasoning in Maldonado applies to this case and suggests that, when taken together, Plaintiffs' notice and affidavit were sufficient to meet the statutory requirements of Section 766.203, Florida Statutes (2000)....

...Orlando Reg'l Health Care Sys., Inc., 871 So.2d 283 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)(affidavit from nurse opining that hospital and its staff failed to meet the appropriate standard of care was deemed sufficient to satisfy statutory pre-suit requirements). The majority opinion appears to read into Section 766.203, Florida Statutes (2000), a requirement that there be an individual affidavit of negligence against each defendant. Because a plain reading of the statute does not contain such a requirement, I would not interject one. On its face, the statute requires a corroborating medical affidavit prior to commencing "medical negligence litigation." Section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (2000)....

...s legitimate. In Davis, the court stated: The expert opinion to be supplied is not one which delineates how the defendants were negligent. Section 766.104 refers to a written medical opinion "that there appears to be evidence of medical negligence." Section 766.203(2) provides that the medical expert opinion is for "corroboration of reasonable grounds to initiate medical negligence litigation." And § 766.205(1) specifically provides that the medical opinion need only corroborate that "there exi...

...The purpose of the medical expert opinion is to corroborate that the claim is legitimate, not to give notice of it. Davis, 654 So.2d at 665. The majority opinion places an additional hurdle to bring a medical malpractice claim that the Legislature did not provide for in enacting Section 766.203, Florida Statutes (2000)....

...intent was given, and in violation of section 766.106(3)(a). Defendant/petitioner filed its motion to dismiss on July 9, 1996. On September 13, 1996, respondent served a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and response to the motion to dismiss. [2] Section 766.203(2)(b), Fla....

...This Court accepted jurisdiction to resolve the conflict between the Fifth District Court of Appeal's decision in the case below and the decision of the Fourth District Court in Citron on the issue of whether the presuit affidavit, required pursuant to sections 766.203(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (1995), [1] is protected by the provisions *69 of section 766.106(5), Florida Statutes (1995)....

...Dauphinee further alleged that Rosemarie died as a result of the misdiagnosis. See id. At trial, the court allowed the defendants to impeach one of Dauphinee's experts, Dr. W. Stuart Battle, M.D., with the presuit affidavit he had prepared as part of Dauphinee's compliance with the presuit screening requirements of section 766.203(2)....

...litigation. Attached to the document was a billing record and a copy of a surgical pathology report from the doctor. The doctor moved to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that it failed to comply with the presuit screening requirement of section 766.203(2)....

...harmed by the plaintiff's failure to provide such an opinion. See 689 So.2d at 1289. In rejecting this argument, the court stated: "We understand the work product protection in section 766.106 not to apply to the corroborating opinion requirement in section 766.203." Id....

...ing of the suit. See Ch. 88-277, § 48, at 1494, Laws of Fla. At the heart of the presuit investigation amendments was the requirement that an expert's affidavit be obtained and that it be attached to the notice of intent to initiate litigation. See § 766.203(2), Fla. Stat. (1989). Section 766.205(4), which is virtually identical to section 766.106(5), was also added at that time. [6] However, the simultaneous enactment of sections 766.205(4) and 766.203(2) may indicate that the legislature intended section 766.205(4), rather than section 766.106(5), to apply to the affidavit attached to the notice of intent....

...scussion, written document, report, or other work product generated solely by the presuit investigation process is discoverable or admissible in any civil action for any purpose by the opposing party." Surely, the corroborative affidavit required by section 766.203(2) is either a statement or written document generated by the presuit investigation process and, as such, enjoys the protection of the statute. Conclusion For the reasons expressed above, we hold that the presuit affidavit required by sections 766.203(2) and (3) is protected by the provisions of section 766.205(4). Therefore, an opposing party may not impeach an expert witness in a medical malpractice action with a corroborative affidavit prepared by that witness in satisfaction of the requirements of sections 766.203(2) and (3)....

...Those have long been the rules of our civil proceedings, medical malpractice claims included. THE LAW The question then becomes whether the law clearly requires a contrary outcome. The affidavit at issue in this case is the *74 corroborating verified written medical expert opinion required by section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (1995), to be submitted to all potential defendants at the time a notice of intent to initiate medical malpractice litigation is provided....

...On appeal, the plaintiff contended that the required corroborating medical opinion was not discoverable because of the provisions of section 766.106(5). See id. at 1290. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments and pointed out that plaintiff had failed to consider the effect of section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (1995), which requires that the corroborating opinion be provided to the opposing party. Id. More precisely, the court stated: We understand the work product protection in section 766.106 not to apply to the corroborating opinion requirement in section 766.203....

...under the discovery privilege. However, Grimshaw is distinguishable because the report sought to be discovered by the plaintiff was written solely for petitioner's insurers and was not the verified written medical expert opinion that is required by section 766.203(2) to be disclosed to the opposing party as corroboration of the lack of reasonable grounds for medical negligence litigation....

...But that is an evaluation the jury should be entitled to make based on all the relevant and available information, especially information already disclosed and made available to the opposing party. That is what a search for the truth under our adversary system is all about. KOGAN, Senior Justice, concurs. NOTES [1] Sections 766.203(2) and (3) provide: (2) Prior to issuing notification of intent to initiate medical malpractice litigation pursuant to s....

...[5] This statement, however, should be read in light of its immediately preceding paragraph. There, the court pointed out that the protection in section 766.106 against discoverability and use by an opposing party does not defeat the requirement in section 766.203(2) of providing the corroborative affidavit....

...ot irreparably harmed by the failure to furnish such an opinion. He apparently bases this argument on section 766.106(5), which provides that work product generated during the pre-screening process is not discoverable. He fails, however, to consider section 766.203(2), which provides that: "Corroboration of reasonable grounds to initiate medical negligence litigation shall be provided by the claimant's submission of a verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert as defined in s....

...766.202(5), at the time the notice of intent to initiate litigation is mailed, which statement shall corroborate reasonable grounds to support the claim of medical negligence." We understand the work product protection in section 766.106 not to apply to the corroborating opinion requirement in section 766.203....

...We now turn to the issue whether the doctor has shown a departure from the essential requirements of law in the trial court's refusal to dismiss the action on account of plaintiff's failure to produce a corroborating medical expert opinion. Certainly, the text of section 766.203 makes the corroborating medical opinion a condition precedent to the commencement or maintenance of an action alleging medical malpractice....

...anesthetic with complications resulting thereafter or negligently performed the colectomy and ileoanal anastomosis." No corroborating medical expert opinion was submitted to the defendants at the time the notice of intent was mailed, as required by section 766.203(2), nor was one submitted prior to the running of the statute of limitations....

...denying their motion to dismiss the medical malpractice complaint brought by respondents, David McCulla and Margaret McCulla. The trial court denied the motion on the basis that the McCullas had satisfied the presuit notice requirements set forth in section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (2011)....

...reasonable grounds to believe Dr. Rell’s treatment fell below the standard of care. After the McCullas filed their complaint, Dr. Rell and Coastal moved to dismiss, arguing that the McCullas failed to comply with the presuit notice requirements of section 766.203(2) because they did not obtain a corroborating opinion from a medical expert attesting that Mr....

...provided by Dr. Kopel-man may have been less than adequate to independently support a claim of medical negligence,” the letters, in conjunction with the McCullas’ counsel’s review of the records, were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 766.203(2)....

...ing in material injury, and (3) which cannot be remedied in a post-judgment appeal. See Williams, 62 So.3d at 1132 . Certainly, where a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action has failed to satisfy the presuit notice requirements set *881 forth in section 766.203(2), the defendant in such an action would suffer a material injury that could not be remedied in a postjudgment appeal if the action was allowed to proceed....

...Thus, because the jurisdictional basis for certio-rari has been met, see Williams, 62 So.3d at 1132 , we are left to determine whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by finding that the statutory requirements were satisfied. We conclude that it did. Section 766.203(2) provides that: Presuit investigation by claimant.— Prior to issuing notification of intent to initiate medical negligence litigation pursuant to s....

...McCulla and that “[s]uch negligence resulted in injury to” Mr. McCulla? We have not identified any authority holding that a medical malpractice plaintiffs attorney will suffice as a “medical expert” for purposes of providing an opinion to meet the presuit requirements of section 766.203(2)....

...Morillo, 976 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007), for the proposition that the presuit notice requirements must be liberally construed. The McCullas contend that a liberal construction of their corroborating affidavit would render it satisfactory under section 766.203(2)....

...Kopelman’s corroborating affidavit on the basis that it never indicated that Dr. Rell provided negligent care or treatment or that there were reasonable grounds to believe that medical negligence had occurred. We agree that the affidavit in this case did not meet the requirements set forth in section 766.203(2)....

...law when it failed to grant Dr. Rell and Coastal’s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, we grant Dr. Rell and Coastal’s petition for writ of certiorari, quash the order of the trial court wherein it determined that the presuit notice requirements of section 766.203(2) were met, and remand for further proceedings....

...negligence.” . The opinion indicates that the appellant argued that the notice of intent served on Dr. Morillo advised him that his care and treatment of the patient was at issue and that the notice, as corroborated by the affidavit, complied with section 766.203(2)....

...But in Bonati v. Allen, 911 So.2d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), this court held that where a corroborating affidavit indicated that medical negligence had occurred by certain named parties but it failed to name Dr. Bonati, the presuit notice requirements of section 766.203(2) had not been met....

...d on plaintiff numerous times leaving plaintiff permanently disabled." Dr. Ostendorf moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds, including failure to state a cause of action and failure to comply with the presuit investigation requirements of section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...The amended complaint was not filed until July 23, 1990, or 158 days after the expiration of the stipulated period. The amended complaint was similar to the first complaint, but alleged that a verified opinion had been obtained from another doctor pursuant to section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...[2] There is no transcript of the hearing on the motion to dismiss and the order concerning the initial dismissal does not explain the reasons for dismissal. From the discussions at oral argument, it appears probable that the trial court dismissed the complaint primarily because the plaintiff failed to allege compliance with section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...tal-East Orlando (Florida Hospital) and Jeffrey R. Morris, D.O. (Dr. Morris). The dismissal order was entered because Ms. Walker failed to provide a verified written medical expert opinion corroborating her claim of medical negligence as required by section 766.203(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1995)....

...Walker's Florida attorney mailed a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation [1] to Dr. Morris and Florida Hospital. The notice did not contain factual allegations of medical negligence and was not accompanied by a corroborating "verified medical expert opinion" as required by section 766.203(2)(b)....

...t dismissal was required because the two-year statute of limitations had expired. On appeal Ms. Walker argues that it was error for the trial court to find that the letters from Dr. Marsh were insufficient to constitute the corroboration required by section 766.203 because they were not given *1211 under oath....

...For purposes of this section, good faith may be shown to exist if the claimant or his counsel has received a written opinion, which shall not be subject to discovery by an opposing party, of an expert as defined in s. 766.102 that there appears to be evidence of medical negligence.... (emphasis added). 766.203 Presuit investigation of medical negligence claims and defenses by prospective parties.— * * * * * * (2) Prior to issuing notification of intent to initiate medical malpractice litigation pursuant to s....

...In Mieles, the opinion of a medical expert was challenged because it had not been given under oath. However, the written opinion contained the following statement which was executed by the medical expert: "Under penalties of perjury I declare that I have read the foregoing verified written medical expert opinion pursuant to section 766.203, Florida Statutes, and that the facts stated are true to the best of [my] knowledge." The court concluded that the declaration using the language set forth in section 92.525, Florida Statutes, substantially complied with the verification requirement....

...Walker argues that dismissal of her complaint was premature because she should have been "permitted to reaffirm her medical expert opinion at a later time." In Suarez, the plaintiff filed an unverified expert medical opinion in an effort to comply with section 766.203....

...Here, we are presented with the issue on direct review, and we align ourselves with the Second District and decline to hold that the statute violates the access to courts provision of the Florida Constitution. See Pearlstein v. Malunney, 500 So.2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), rev. denied, 511 So.2d 299 (Fla.1987). Compliance with section 766.203 is simply a condition precedent to maintaining an action for medical negligence....

written medical expert opinion, as required by section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (2011). The expert opinion

....” UBC also alleged: “[UBC] asserts that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action by [Joseph’s] failure to comply with the conditions precedent prior to the filing of this action pursuant to Florida Statutes § 766.106 and § 766.203.” UBC then moved for summary judgment on the grounds set forth in their affirmative defenses....

...Williams, 563 So.2d 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (addressing statutory predecessor and pre-filing notice requirements), reversed on other grounds, 588 So.2d 982 (Fla. 1991); Berry v. Orr, 537 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), rev. denied, 545 So.2d 1368 (Fla. 1989). Indeed, section 766.203, Florida Statutes (1993) expressly states in subsection (1) that presuit investigation of medical negligence claims and defenses pursuant to the statute shall apply to all medical negligence, including dental negligence claims and defenses....

...22, 1995); Miami Physical Therapy Associates, Inc. v. Savage, 632 So.2d 114, 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); NME Properties, Inc. v. McCullough, 590 So.2d 439, 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). We grant the petition. Davis' pre-suit medical expert opinion was provided to ORMC pursuant to section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...This court previously addressed the purpose of the pre-suit notice and expert corroborative opinion: The expert opinion to be supplied is not one which delineates how the defendants were negligent. Section 766.104 refers to a written medical opinion "that there appears to be evidence of medical negligence." Section 766.203(2) provides that the medical expert opinion is for "corroboration of reasonable grounds to initiate medical negligence litigation." And § 766.205(1) specifically provides that the medical opinion need only corroborate that "there exi...

...baseless litigation, not to set forth in protracted detail the plaintiff's theory of the case. Contrary to ORMC's position, nothing in the statute requires that the corroborating expert opinion identify every possible instance of medical negligence. § 766.203; see also § 766.205(1)....

...Holden complied with the reasonable presuit investigation requirements of chapter 766, and therefore we reverse. In a letter dated August 10, 2007, Mr. Holden served Dr. Gu a notice of intent to initiate a medical malpractice action against him pursuant to sections 766.106(2) and 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (2006)....

...of care for emergency department physicians. Dr. Gu and the Malka Institute argued that under the "four corners of [Mr. Holden's] complaint," Mr. Holden failed to corroborate that reasonable grounds existed for a claim against Dr. Gu as required by section 766.203(2) before issuing the notice of intent....

...[3] Because the passage of the statute of limitations effectively ended the judicial labor in this case, we treat the circuit court's order as a final, appealable order. II. An explanation of the statutory requirements to initiate a medical malpractice action The purpose of a presuit investigation under section 766.203(2) is to allow a claimant to ascertain in good faith whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that a defendant was negligent and if such negligence resulted in injury to the claimant. The claimant must corroborate the reasonable grounds to initiate and support a medical malpractice action by submitting a verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert as defined under section 766.202(6). § 766.203(2)....

...ot neurology. Accordingly, they insist Dr. Baker's corroborating affidavit, in which he opines Dr. Gu deviated from the standard of care directed at an emergency department physician, cannot be considered a valid written medical expert opinion under section 766.203(2)....

...5th DCA 2003) (citing Kukral v. Mekras, 679 So.2d 278, 278 (Fla. 1996)). [4] We also observe that there is nothing establishing that Dr. Gu or the Malka Institute submitted a competing verified medical expert opinion from a medical expert rejecting Mr. Holden's claims. See § 766.203(3)(b).

...uit screening requirements of chapter 766, Florida Statutes, for medical malpractice claims; (2) that their compliance with the presuit screening requirements was sufficient such that the trial court erred in dismissing their complaint; and (3) that section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes, which imposes as a condition precedent to the filing of a medical malpractice claim that the plaintiff provide notice of the claim and a corroborating expert opinion, is unconstitutional....

...edures contained in chapter 766, Florida Statutes (1989). We reverse and remand because we conclude that St. Josephs' motion to dismiss should have been granted, if at all, with the right for Suarez to amend her pleadings and attempt compliance with section 766.203(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1989). St. Joseph's moved to dismiss on the following three grounds: (1) Suarez's failure to submit to St. Joseph's the verified, written, medical expert opinion as required by section 766.203(2)(b); (2) the failure of the unverified medical opinion submitted to St....

...dence of medical negligence." Id. As additional corroboration, the claimant must submit to the defendant, along with the notice of intent to initiate litigation, a verified written medical expert opinion that reasonable grounds for the action exist. § 766.203(2)(b)....

...ine, Ohio State University, and I have had special professional training and experience. I understand that this opinion will be used by you on Mrs. Suarez's behalf as part of the presuit investigation for medical negligence claims in accordance with § 766.203, Florida Statutes....

...The primary thrust of St. Josephs' motion to dismiss, however, was assertion that the medical opinion was not properly verified. Although the letter that was attached to the complaint was intended to constitute the expert medical opinion required by section 766.203(2)(b), it was not verified as required....

...h is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. That no previous opinion rendered by him has been disqualified. Further affiant says not. St. Joseph's argues vigorously that this affidavit does not meet the verification requirements of section 766.203(2), which provides, in pertinent part: Corroboration of reasonable grounds to initiate medical negligence litigation shall be provided by the claimant's submission of a verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert as defined in s....

...He sued Wuesthoff, as well as two physicians who treated him, although one physician was apparently dropped as this case progressed. Our appeal, however, involves only Wuesthoff. While it is somewhat unclear, it appears that Dr. Yocom initiated a malpractice presuit investigation pursuant to section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (2001), with respect to Wuesthoff, but failed to submit a verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert, as required by the statute....

...Petitioners moved to dismiss because Rhodes' presuit written expert report, from a physician who specializes in plastic surgery, offered opinions regarding the medical care provided by Dr. Riggenbach, who specializes in orthopedic surgery. Because Rhodes failed to comply with the requirement of sections 766.203, 776.202(6), and 766.102(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2014), that he provide a written medical expert opinion from a specialist in the same specialty as the defendant health care provider, the complaint should have been dismissed, unless those st...

...and an orthopedic surgeon practiced the same specialty. Dr. Kreegel's affidavit was statutorily insufficient; therefore, Rhodes failed to comply with the presuit requirements of filing a medical malpractice complaint against Petitioners pursuant to section 766.203....

...ion. A "health care provider" includes "physicians licensed under chapter 458 ... nurses licensed under chapter 464," but does not include a hospital administrator such as the affiant in this case. Weinstock, 629 So.2d at 836-37. [2] Compliance with section 766.203 is a condition precedent to maintaining an action for medical negligence....

...Accordingly, we grant the petitions for writs of certiorari, in part, reverse the trial court's order as to Counts III and V, and deny the petition as to Count IV. PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Numerous cases have held that if the expert medical opinion required by section 766.203, Florida Statutes (1995), is technically deficient when submitted, it is not fatal to jurisdiction so long as compliance is accomplished within the two-year limitations period provided for filing suit." Kukral v....

reasonable grounds to show a negligent injury. § 766.203(3)(b). The claimant benefits from the requirement

...on a reasonable basis," counsel for the doctors argued that the only issue was whether the affidavits from Drs. Goldfarb and Stein were sufficient to "corroborate reasonable grounds to support the claim[s] of medical negligence," as contemplated by section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...Two recent decisions, of which the trial court did not have the benefit, provide insight regarding the proper statutory analysis to be undertaken in such cases. In the first, Duffy v. Brooker, 614 So.2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), the trial court had stricken the defendant doctor's response, pursuant to section 766.203(3), Florida Statutes (1989), to a notice of intent to initiate litigation; and had awarded attorney fees to the claimant, pursuant to section 766.206(3)....

...reasonable basis," the motion will be denied. 614 So.2d at 544-45. In the second case, Williams v. Powers, 619 So.2d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), the trial court had dismissed a medical negligence claim for failure to comply with sections 766.106(2) and 766.203(2)....

...Accordingly, the Legislature set forth a detailed procedure for initiating complaints against medical providers arising out of negligence in medical care. Prior to initiating litigation, a plaintiff must mail to the prospective defendants a notice of intent to initiate litigation and a medical expert affidavit. ß 766.203(2), Fla....

...re from a battery of physicians, nurses and staff"). While the statute requires a claimant to investigate the claims against each defendant, it does not require the affidavit to attest to the legitimacy of each claim against each defendant. Instead, section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes, indicates that "[c]orroboration of reasonable grounds to initiate medical negligence litigation shall be provided by the claimant's submission of a verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert. . . ." ß 766.203(2), Fla....

...Richard Gardner stating that the treating physicians were negligent in their care of Mrs. Faber. Pursuant to section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1991), a notice of intent to initiate litigation for medical malpractice was sent to the defendants. In accordance with section 766.203(2)(b), Dr....

...3d DCA 1994), the Third District reviewed the trial court's ruling that the claimant's presuit expert was unqualified to render an opinion pertaining to emergency medical services. The Third District determined that: [s]ection 766.202(5), which defines medical expert as expressly applicable to section 766.203, provides a less stringent standard than the section delineating the standard for admission of expert testimony in an action involving emergency medical services....

...The ninety-day presuit screening period did not expire until March 14th. Wainscott filed a dental malpractice action against Rindley in July 1991. Rindley answered and asserted affirmative defenses. Wainscott filed a motion to strike Rindley's defenses for failure to comply with section 766.203(3), Florida Statutes (1989), [3] by omitting an expert opinion negating malpractice when it denied coverage....

...suit. No suit may be filed until ninety-days after notice is mailed to all prospective defendants. § 766.106(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989). [2] Section 766.106(7)(b) requires a party to respond within 20 days after the discovery request is received. [3] Section 766.203 provides: "Corroboration of lack of reasonable grounds for medical negligence litigation shall be provided with any response rejecting the claim by the defendant's submission of a verified written medical expert opinion......

...In this case, the Defendant physicians argue that the Plaintiffs failed to comply with two critical requirements of Chapter 766 relating to the verified written medical expert opinion which a claimant must provide in conjunction with serving his notice of intent to sue pursuant to § 766.203(2), Florida Statutes....

...efined in § 766.202(5), Florida Statutes; [3] and (2) neither of the written opinions contain any information regarding whether any previous opinion by the same "expert" has been disqualified in another legal proceeding, as specifically required by § 766.203(4)....

...fficient. To conclude otherwise would negate the express language and belie the clear intent of Chapter 766. With respect to the Plaintiffs' failure to include some assurance in Drs. Schwartz's and Semel's affidavits that they are "medical experts," § 766.203(2), Florida Statutes specifically requires that a claimant's notice of intent to sue be corroborated by a written opinion from a "medical expert." As discussed above, who qualifies as a medical expert for presuit purposes is explicitly defined by the Chapter 766....

...the notice of intent to sue. As for the Plaintiffs' failure to include information in Drs. Schwartz's and Semel's affidavits regarding whether a court has ever disqualified them as experts, that omission flies in the face of the express language of § 766.203(4), Florida Statutes which clearly requires such a statement....

...rately assess the true expertise of the person giving the opinion and, consequently, to properly analyze the threat posed by the Plaintiffs' claims. In sum, since the Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the presuit requirements of §§ 766.106 and 766.203, Florida Statutes, their complaint must be dismissed pursuant to § 766.206(2)....

...In support of their motion, Plaintiffs assert that there is a direct conflict between the requirements of the Florida Medical Malpractice Statute and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, the Plaintiffs argue that the heightened pleading requirement in Fla.Stat. § 766.203, requiring an affidavit from a medical expert as part of a plaintiff's complaint directly conflicts with Fed.R.Civ.P....

...[2] After the conclusion of the statutorily mandated presuit investigation, § 766.106, Florida Statutes requires a claimant to provide each defendant he intends to sue with a notice of his intent to initiate litigation for medical malpractice. Pursuant to § 766.203(2), the claimant must also provide a corroborating verified written expert medical opinion at the time the notice of intent to sue is mailed....

...a university or college and has had special professional training and experience or one possessed of a special health care knowledge or skill about the subject upon which he is called to testify or provide an opinion." § 766.202(5), Fla. Stat. [4] Section 766.203, Florida Statutes provides that "the medical expert opinions required by this section shall specify whether any previous opinion by the same medical expert has been disqualified and if so the name of the court and the case number in w...

...attorney for the Williamses testified, the court's ruling was limited to its finding that their notice of intent to initiate litigation addressed to the hospital failed to meet the requirements of the Medical Malpractice Act, sections 766.106(2) and 766.203(2), and thus their suit should be dismissed, pursuant to section 766.206(2)....

...Powers, M.D., and David W. Powers, M.D., P.A. On July 18, 1990, the hospital rejected the Williamses' claim for malpractice regarding their child. It did not provide any corroborating, "verified written medical expert opinion" to bolster its rejection, as contemplated by section 766.203(3)(b)....

...Motions for sanctions were made by both sides, and at a lengthy hearing extended to a later date, much argument about the meaning of the Medical Malpractice Act and its application to this case was advanced, but little progress was made. The Williamses argued that their second intent to sue letter met the requirements of section 766.203(2)....

...Physicians Protective Trust Fund, 614 So.2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), failure to provide an adequate verified written medical expert opinion is not "dispositive" in dealing with a medical malpractice defendant's "response" rejecting a claim pursuant to section 766.203(3), although the court said such a conclusory opinion was prima facie evidence of the lack of a reasonable basis to deny a claim....

...monstrating how the general practice areas of family and emergency medicine are or could be a specialty similar to cardiology. Prior to instituting a claim based on medical negligence, a claimant must comply with the presuit requirements outlined in section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes....

...Appellants retained an attorney to investigate and represent them in the resulting medical malpractice action, then initiated an action against various defendants alleging "medical malpractice in the care and treatment of Cheryl Germ." Appellants did not name Drs. Macksey and McLanahan in the initial action. Pursuant to section 766.203, Florida Statutes (2006), Appellants were required to investigate their claim and confirm reasonable grounds existed to commence a medical malpractice action....

...Watson's failure to comply with the pre-suit screening statutes. Ch. 766, Fla. Stat. (1993). We reverse. Contrary to Dr. Beckman's contention, Ms. Watson's failure to provide a verified corroborating expert opinion with the notice of intent to initiate litigation [1] does not justify dismissal. § 766.203(2), Fla....

...f the medical records more than two months later. Medina mailed Notices of Intent to Initiate Medical Malpractice Litigation to The Public Health Trust d/b/a Jackson Memorial Hospital and to the University of Miami School of Medicine, as required by section 766.203, Florida Statutes (1997)....

...complex presuit requirements, as set forth in chapter 766, Florida Statutes, before filing a medical malpractice suit, which includes conducting “an investigation to ascertain that there are reasonable grounds to believe” that medical malpractice occurred. Id. § 766.203(2); see generally id....

...Prior to issuing a notice of intent to initiate a medical malpractice lawsuit, the claimant must conduct an investigation to ascertain there are reasonable grounds to believe that any named defendant in the litigation was negligent and that such negligence resulted in injury to the claimant. §§ 766.104(1), 766.203(2). After completing the presuit investigation and prior to filing a claim for medical malpractice, the claimant must notify each prospective defendant of his or her intent to initiate litigation for medical malpractice. Section 766.203(2) requires the claim be corroborated by at least one "verified written medical expert opinion" which must be furnished by the claimant....

...§ 766.106(3)(a). Before the defendant may deny the claimant's reasonable grounds for finding medical negligence, the defendant must provide a verified written medical expert opinion corroborating a lack of reasonable grounds to show a negligent injury. § 766.203(3)(b)....

...Dulay’s care and therefore contemplated suing the doctor in state court for medical negligence. As required by Florida law, Murphy retained experts who were ready to opine that Dr. Dulay’s treatment of Murphy fell below the prevailing standard of care and injured Murphy. See Fla. Stat. § 766.203(2). Murphy was ready to file his lawsuit but first had to comply with Florida’s numerous presuit requirements....

...No suit may be filed for 90 days after notice is mailed. Id. § 766.106(3)(a). Along with this presuit notice, the plaintiff must provide “a verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert” to corroborate his “reasonable grounds to initiate medical negligence litigation.” Id. § 766.203(2). The presuit notice also must include: (1) a list, “if available,” of “all known health care providers” seen by the plaintiff “for the injuries complained of subsequent to the alleged act of negligence”; (2) a list,...

...with the requirements of section 766.202(5) defining "medical expert." Contrary to defendants' contention, section 766.102(6), Florida Statutes (1989), does not delineate the requisite qualifications of the expert offering the presuit affidavit. [7] Section 766.203(2) provides, in pertinent part, that "[c]orroboration of reasonable grounds to initiate medical negligence litigation shall be provided by the claimant's submission of a verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert as defined in s....

...professional training and experience or one possessed of special health care knowledge or skill about the subject upon which he is called to testify or provide an opinion." Section 766.202(5), which defines medical expert as expressly applicable to section 766.203, provides a less stringent standard than the section delineating the standard for admission of expert testimony in an action involving emergency medical services. The less stringent standard of section 766.202(5) is in keeping with the legislative aim of preventing frivolous lawsuits without denying a claimant's access to court. Section 766.203(2) directs claimant to conduct an investigation to ascertain that there are reasonable grounds to believe that defendant was negligent....

...Mussallem, 595 So.2d 136 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 604 So.2d 487 (Fla. 1992). Section 766.102(6) concerning the admissibility of expert testimony in cases involving emergency medical services need not be read in pari materia with sections 766.202(5), and 766.203(2)....

..."[O]nly when a statute is ambiguous will we attempt to divine legislative intent from sources extrinsic to the statutory language." Silva v. Southwest Florida Blood Bank, 601 So.2d 1184, 1188 (Fla. 1992). Compare Duffy v. Brooker, 614 So.2d 539, 543 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 624 So.2d 267 (Fla. 1993). The plain words of section 766.203(2) require a corroborating opinion from a medical expert as defined in section 766.202(5); it does not require that claimant submit an affidavit from an expert as described in sections 766.102(6)(a) and (b)....

...66 definitions *89 of health care provider evidences a legislative intent that psychologists not be classified as health care providers). Moreover, we may not engraft the more stringent requirements of section 766.102(6) onto sections 766.202(5) and 766.203(2) in contravention of the express language of the statute....

...ing the presuit period. The medical malpractice claimant must conduct an investigation to ascertain whether reasonable grounds exist to believe that defendants negligently treated claimant and that such negligence resulted in injury to the claimant. § 766.203(2)(a) and (b), Fla....

...s Maldonado while a patient at Cedars Medical Center, Inc. My review indicates that there is a lack of reasonable grounds for medical negligence in the claim raised by Charles Maldonado against Cedars Medical Center, Inc. pursuant to Florida Statute § 766.203(3)[.] [3] EMSA's affiant, a board-certified surgeon, stated, in pertinent part, that [i]t is my opinion, based on a reasonable degree of medical probability, that Emergency Medical Services Associates, Inc., and/or EMSA Limited Partnership ....

...ing their claim. We reverse. This appeal is controlled by the recent case of Stebilla v. Mussallem, 595 So.2d 136 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 604 So.2d 487 (Fla. 1992), which was decided subsequent to the trial court's orders in the instant case. Section 766.203, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...uit affidavit and further assuming that the requested information is not privileged, then an order denying Dr. Plantz’s pending motion to dismiss might constitute a failure to comply with the statutory presuit screening requirements under sections 766.203 and 766.206, Florida Statutes (2008)....

...n providing emergency medical services under section 766.102(9). He also alleged that Dr. Dellerson did not conduct a complete review of available records in forming his opinion corroborating the grounds asserted to support the Estate’s claim. See § 766.203(2)....

...of Wausau v. Abernathy, 442 So.2d 953, 954 (Fla. 1983). Those benefits do not obtain under the statutes in issue. Here, a defendant retains causation defenses and the claimant must demonstrate reasonable grounds to initiate medical negligence litigation, § 766.203(2), Fla....

...(1999). Pre-suit investigation is mandatory while arbitration is voluntary. [3] Thus the notice provision cannot be considered in isolation because appended to the pre-suit notice requirement are the pre-suit investigation requirements contained in section 766.203, Florida Statutes. The requirements of pre-suit investigation apply to "all medical negligence" claims and defenses. § 766.203(1), Fla....

...766.106, the claimant shall conduct an investigation to ascertain that there are reasonable grounds to believe that: (a) [a]ny named defendant in the litigation was negligent in the care and treatment of the claimant; and (b), [s]uch negligence resulted in injury to the claimant. " § 766.203(2)(a),(b), Fla....

...otice and investigation, it becomes apparent that to be a claimant under the Act, the person presenting the claim must have received negligent medical care and treatment from a medical care provider that resulted in the person's injury or death. See § 766.203(2), Fla....

...At the time the notice of intent is mailed, the claimant must submit a verified written medical expert *414 opinion from a medical expert qualified under the Act, "which statement shall corroborate reasonable grounds to support the claim of medical negligence." § 766.203(2)(b), Fla....

...With notice, however, each prospective party must give access to pertinent information. Subsection 766.106(2) is unambiguous and defines who must take what action, when it must be done, and how. "When" is defined by the requirement that presuit notice be sent "after completion of presuit investigation pursuant to § 766.203." The notice must be sent prior to filing suit but after the claimant has completed presuit investigation....

...8. Dr. Wagner and Associates moved to dismiss Mr. Anderson's amended medical malpractice complaint. The motion was premised on Mr. Anderson's failure to submit a verified written medical expert opinion as part of his notice of intent, as required by section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (2003)....

...Anderson a complete copy of his medical chart pursuant to his request on August 29, 2003, well within the ten-day time period. OSC and Dr. Thompson also filed motions to dismiss Mr. Anderson's complaint, contending that Mr. Anderson failed to provide a corroborating affidavit for his complaint, as required by section 766.203(2)....

...Anderson had failed to comply with the provisions of Florida's Medical Malpractice Act. Specifically, they demonstrated that Mr. *589 Anderson did not submit an expert affidavit corroborating that reasonable grounds existed to support the claims of medical negligence as required by section 766.203....

...A similar order was issued on August 30, 2005, dismissing Mr. Anderson's claims against Dr. Thompson and OSC with prejudice. The final orders stated, in pertinent part: The Court finds that as of the date of this hearing, plaintiff has failed to submit a verified written medical opinion as required by section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes....

...Nichols, 712 So.2d 784 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). This appeal followed. Mr. Anderson claims that the trial court erred in dismissing his medical malpractice complaint against Appellees. Mr. Anderson contends that the trial court: (1) improperly relied on section 766.203 in dismissing his case; (2) erred in dismissing his case in light of alleged fraud; and (3) denied his rights to speedy trial, due process, and equal protection by failing to grant his motion for evidentiary hearing....

...Appellees' motions to dismiss were based in part on the contention that Mr. Anderson failed to file a verified written expert opinion along with his notice of intent to corroborate that there are reasonable grounds upon which Mr. Anderson filed his complaint. Section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (2003), provides: PRESUIT INVESTIGATION BY CLAIMANT.—Prior to issuing notification of intent to initiate medical negligence litigation pursuant to s....

...he loss for which the plaintiff had compensated the Aumons. Because the contribution claim was founded on a claim of medical malpractice, the *231 plaintiff complied with the medical malpractice presuit screening requirements of sections 766.104 and 766.203, Florida Statutes....

...ing disputes regarding medical care. See Weinstock v. Groth, 629 So.2d 835 (Fla.1993). We conclude that the statutory presuit screening requirements apply to an action for contribution that is based on a claim of medical malpractice. By the terms of section 766.203(1), all claims of medical malpractice are subject to the mandatory presuit screening procedure....

...Count II of the complaint alleged the negligence of Dr. Mork, count III alleged the negligence of Dr. Hirschauer, count IV alleged the negligence of Dr. Haufe, and count V alleged the vicarious liability of Gulf Coast. Prior to filing suit, Allen conducted a presuit investigation pursuant to section 766.203, Florida Statutes, and thereafter served a notice of intent to initiate litigation pursuant to section 766.106(2)....

...sary and uncalled for. It is my opinion that the treatment rendered by David Hirschauer, D.O., and Scott Haufe, M.D., deviated from acceptable standards of medical care. Dr. Bonati filed a motion to dismiss asserting that Allen had not complied with section 766.203 and that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to section 766.206(2)....

...Capps, 633 So.2d 9, 13 (Fla.1994). The statutory scheme does not require that the corroborating expert's affidavit give notice of every possible instance of medical negligence. Davis v. Orlando Reg'l Med. Ctr., 654 So.2d 664 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). However, section 766.203(2) requires that the claimant shall conduct an investigation to ascertain that there are reasonable grounds to believe that: (a) Any named defendant in the litigation was negligent in the care or treatment of the claimant; and (b) Such negligence resulted in injury to the claimant....

negligence resulted in injury to the claimant. § 766,203(2)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat. (2016). Following that investigation

...tion 766.106, Florida Statutes (1997). In the presuit screening it was alleged that the hospital is vicariously liable to plaintiff because of the negligence of its emergency room physicians and nursing staff. The corroborating affidavit required by section 766.203 was from an emergency physician....

...orth in protracted detail the plaintiffs theory of the case. Contrary to ORMC's [Orlando Regional Medical Center] position, nothing in the statute requires that the corroborating expert opinion identify every possible instance of medical negligence. § 766.203; see also § 766.205(1)....

definition of "health care provider." [2] See also § 766. 203, Fla. Stat. (1997). [3] In prior cases, we have

...Petitioner's corroborating medical expert authored the opinion attached to petitioner's notice of intent to initiate medical negligence litigation. Corroboration of reasonable grounds to initiate medical negligence litigation by a medical expert is a component of the presuit investigation process. § 766.203, Fla....

...inds appellants in default. The current order states that the trial court had previously stricken appellants' pleadings for failure to submit a corroborating medical expert's opinion to the presuit response rejecting appellee's claim, as required by section 766.203(3), Florida Statutes....

...Maguire), challenges the circuit court’s order denying her motion for summary judgment. Dr. Maguire claims that the plaintiffs/respondents, Dorothy Nichols and Dale Nichols (Nichols), failed to provide “a verified written medical expert opinion” as required by section 766.203, Florida Statutes (1995), at the time of filing the notice of intent to initiate a medical malpractice action or at any time prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations....

...t to ascertain that there are reasonable grounds to believe the claimant was injured by the negligence of a medical provider. As a component of this presuit investigation, the claimant must obtain an expert medical opinion corroborating such injury. § 766.203(2), Fla....

...Here, according to the complaint, Park Place was a mental health facility licensed under chapter 394. Cf. §§ 394.461, .4612. This type of entity is not listed in any of chapter 766’s definitions, nor is it apparent from the complaint that Park Place otherwise met any of the descriptions in those definitions. Section 766.203 is governed by the definition of health care provider in section 766.202(4)....

...Reiss, Miami, for appellee. Before COPE, SHEVIN, and RAMIREZ, JJ. PER CURIAM. Appellants/plaintiffs, Maria Gloria Estanillo and Osvaldo Tapia-Ruano, appeal the dismissal with prejudice of their medical malpractice complaint for failure to comply with the requirements of section 766.203, Florida Statutes (1997), because Estanillo did not provide appellees/defendants, Luis O....

...Andres Vega, M.D., a physician licensed to practice in the state of Florida and certified by the American Board of Anesthesiology. The last paragraph of Dr. Vega's written opinion stated: "Under penalties of perjury I declare that I have read the foregoing verified written medical expert opinion pursuant to section 766.203, Florida Statutes and that the facts stated are true to the best of [my] knowledge and belief." After Mieles filed her action, the hospital moved to dismiss, claiming that because Dr....

...At issue is whether the trial court erred in dismissing Mieles' complaint based on the *1266 untimeliness of the notarized medical opinion, where a timely filed non-notarized medical opinion had substantially complied with the statutory meaning of the word "verified." Section 766.203, Florida Statutes (1993), requires that during presuit investigation a claimant must submit a verified written medical expert opinion to corroborate that there are reasonable grounds to initiate the medical negligence litigation....

...cts or matters stated or recited in the document are true, or words to that import or effect. We conclude that Dr. Vega's signed declaration, using the language set forth in section 92.525, substantially complies with the verification requirement of section 766.203, and was permissible when initially and timely filed, therefore making immaterial the subsequent late filing of the notarized copy of the doctor's opinion....

...The trial court concluded that the presuit notice provisions of chapter 766 applied and dismissed the action. We affirm. Presuit notices of intent to sue are required by section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1995). Section 766.106(2) states in part that: "After completion of presuit investigations pursuant to s. 766.203 and prior to filing a claim for medical malpractice, a claimant shall notify each prospective defendant and......

...are or services." [1] We have no difficulty in deciding that fraudulent rendering of unnecessary medical care and services is encompassed by the term "arising out of the rendering of ... medical care or services." Presuit investigation is covered by section 766.203, Florida Statutes (1995). Section 766.203(1) provides that "presuit investigation of medical negligence claims and defenses......

...d constitutes assault on patient). But the legislature has used different locutions in prescribing the applicability of these statutes. [3] Unlike section 766.106, which applies to all claims arising out of the rendering of medical care or services, section 766.203 applies to actions for damages based on death or personal injury resulting from medical negligence....

...Rather plaintiffs simply allege that medical services were rendered as part of a scheme to collect more than the medical condition required. A literal reading of the statutory text seems to suggest that section 766.106 requires presuit notice but that section 766.203 does not apply to require presuit screening....

...Because this is manifestly absurd given the internal structure and logic of the medical malpractice law, we conclude that both statutes must apply. Moreover, section 766.106(2) rather clearly states that the notice shall be given "[a]fter completion of presuit investigation pursuant to s. 766.203." It is clear to us that plaintiffs cannot prove their cause of action without adducing evidence as to the medical necessity for the hospitalization periods....

...(1993) (emphasis added). The Act does not address claims of intentional misconduct. We also note that the pre-suit investigation which is part of that plan, § 766.201(2)(a), is specifically geared to the investigation of medical negligence claims, § 766.203, and that pre-suit discovery provisions apply to cases in which there are grounds for a "claim of negligent injury," § 766.205(1) (emphasis added), as do provisions allowing the court to determine if a claim or denial is reasonable, § 766.206....

...t he had additional time was unreasonable and unsupported by the facts. As to Dr. Jacob, the notice of intent was also sent on May 8, 2001. The notice was accompanied by an affidavit of a nurse, who was not a medical expert under the requirements of section 766.203(2)(b), Florida Statutes....

...Prior to initiating a medical malpractice action against Dr. Fa-hel, the plaintiffs conducted a statutory presuit investigation to determine if there were reasonable grounds to believe that Dr. Fahel was negligent in caring for and treating Juliana and whether such negligence caused her death. § 766.203(2), Fla....

...ns and amended motion to dismiss. They sought a dismissal of Latasha Mann’s amended complaint, arguing, in part, that the presuit affidavit obtained from Amy L. Budoff, M.D., was legally insufficient under the applicable statutory provision, i.e., section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (2012, 2018)....

...Additionally, Tampa General will be irreparably harmed if this claim is allowed to proceed. See Rell, 101 So.3d at 880-81 (“Certainly, where a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action has failed to satisfy the presuit notice requirements set forth in section 766.203(2), the defendant in such an action would suffer a material injury that could not be remedied in a postjudgment appeal if the action was allowed to proceed.”)....

...for which Virginia Insurance had compensated the Aumons. Because the contribution claim was based on a claim of medical malpractice, Virginia Insurance complied with the medical malpractice presuit screening requirements of sections 766.104 [1] and 766.203, [2] Florida Statutes (1997)....

...cal Malpractice Act where the contribution action is based on medical malpractice. The Medical Malpractice Act specifically requires presuit investigation of medical negligence claims and applies to " all medical negligence ... claims and defenses." § 766.203(1), Fla....

...tion 766.106, a claimant must "conduct an investigation to ascertain that there are reasonable grounds to believe" that the defendant was negligent in the care or treatment of the claimant and that this negligence resulted in injury to the claimant. § 766.203(2), Fla....

...ling the action has made a reasonable investigation to determine a good faith belief that there has been negligence in the care or treatment of the claimant. The initial pleading must be accompanied by a certificate of counsel attesting to such. [2] Section 766.203, Florida Statutes (1997), which is entitled "Presuit investigation of medical negligence claims and defenses by prospective parties," provides in pertinent part: (1) Presuit investigation of medical negligence claims and defenses pursuant to this section and ss....

...sonable grounds to believe that: (a) The defendant was negligent in the care or treatment of the claimant; and (b) Such negligence resulted in injury to the claimant. [3] As provided in section 766.106(2), after the presuit investigation required by section 766.203 is complete a claimant must notify each prospective defendant, and the Department of Health if any prospective defendant is a licensed health care provider, of intent to initiate litigation for medical malpractice....

...der denying Vein Center's motion to dismiss and determining that Katrina Huppman complied with medical negligence presuit notice requirements. Because Huppman did not provide a corroborating affidavit by a qualified medical expert in compliance with section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (2007), the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law in denying Vein Center's motion to dismiss....

...Vein Center is the defendant in a pending medical negligence case in which Huppman alleged she sustained injuries when a technician at Vein Center treated her on December 18, 2006. In June 2008, Huppman served her notice of intent to initiate litigation ("NOI") pursuant to section 766.203(2)....

...[1] In the NOI, Huppman alleged that she was injured after undergoing a treatment known as Lumenis One, which involved the use of intense pulsed light ("IPL") equipment to improve the appearance of age spots on her body. Huppman did not serve a corroborating medical expert opinion with the NOI as *991 required by section 766.203 because Huppman believed Vein Center had waived its right to medical corroboration by failing to provide Huppman with medical records....

...court. Vein Center argues that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law in failing to dismiss the complaint based on Huppman's failure to provide a corroborating affidavit by a qualified medical expert in compliance with section 766.203(2)....

...pter 766 have not been met." Oken v. Williams, 23 So.3d 140, 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). We review the sufficiency of the corroborating affidavit in order to comply with our duty to enforce the policy behind the presuit notice requirements. Id. at 145. Section 766.203(2) requires "[c]orroboration of reasonable grounds to initiate medical negligence litigation" in the form of "a verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert as defined in s....

...th care provider and meets the following criteria." Subsections (a)—(c) set forth differing criteria for expert witnesses depending upon the status of the person against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is being presented. Thus, under sections 766.203(2), 766.202(6), and 766.102(5), the written expert opinion that accompanies a claimant's notice of intent must be rendered by a person who (1) is "duly and regularly engaged in the practice of his or her profession," (2) has a degree in healt...

...Additionally, Boyert's CV does not reflect that Boyert is a licensed health care provider, and Huppman has conceded that Boyert is not licensed. Because Boyert does not meet these two requirements, she is not qualified to render a medical expert opinion under section 766.203(2) regardless of whether she meets the additional requirements of section 766.102(5)....

...Houston's affidavit was not considered by the circuit court, and it would be improper for this court to consider it for the first time on appeal. See Pedroni v. Pedroni, 788 So.2d 1138, 1139 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Because Huppman did not provide a corroborating affidavit by a qualified medical expert in compliance with section 766.203(2), the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law in denying Vein Center's motion to dismiss. We therefore grant certiorari and quash the order on review. Petition granted, order quashed, and case remanded. ALTENBERND, J., and FULMER, CAROLYN K., SENIOR JUDGE, Concur. NOTES [1] Section 766.203(2) provides as follows: (2) Presuit investigation by claimant.—Prior to issuing notification of intent to initiate medical negligence litigation pursuant to s....

...When she was next seen one week later at *283 a different hospital, an ultrasound revealed that her baby was dead. It was alleged in the medical malpractice complaint that the failure of the emergency room physicians to order a certain test was negligence resulting in the stillbirth. Section 766.203, Florida Statutes (2003) requires a medical malpractice claimant to provide, in the presuit process, an affidavit of a medical expert....

...However, this claim had to be dismissed because a mere negligence action may not be maintained against the individual employees of the Lake County jail. See § 768.28, Fla. Stat. (2009). Regarding his medical malpractice claim, James failed to comply with section 766.203, Florida Statutes (2009), and therefore, this claim also had to be dismissed....

...ley and Katt. The Marajs did not mention Dr. James in the original or amended complaint. Due to the Marajs' failure to comply with requirements contained in chapter 766, Florida Statutes (2003), Dr. Paley and Dr. Katt each filed a motion to dismiss. Section 766.203(2) requires a medical malpractice claimant to corroborate the assertion that reasonable grounds exist to file the claim with "a verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert as defined in s....

...As to the disqualification of counsel, petitioner has not shown a departure from the essential requirements of law. Respondent/plaintiff, Michelle Earing-Doud, notified petitioner/defendant Dr. Sultan of her claim against him for dental malpractice. During the statutory presuit process required under section 766.203, Florida Statutes (2000), Dr....

...quirements, which include conducting a presuit investigation process to ascertain whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant medical provider was negligent, and that the negligence resulted in injury to the claimant." (citing § 766.203(2)(a)-(b), Fla....

...Mary's Hosp., Inc. v. Phillipe , 769 So.2d 961 , 969-70 (Fla. 2000) ), thus allowing the parties "to avoid lengthy litigation of claims and the associated costs of such litigation," id. (citing Kukral v. Mekras , 679 So.2d 278 , 280 (Fla. 1996) ). Section 766.203, Florida Statutes, specifically governs the presuit investigation requirements of medical negligence claims by prospective parties....

...rvices. § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1993). Presuit investigation of medical negligence claims and defenses pursuant to this section and ss. 766.204-766.206 shall apply to all medical negligence, including dental negligence, claims and defenses.... § 766.203, Fla....

...Mirza argues that his motion should have been granted because respondents did not individually serve him with a notice of intent pursuant to section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes (2004), and did not individually name him in their corroborating expert affidavit, filed pursuant to section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (2004)....

...ence. Kukral, 679 So.2d at 280. As part of the investigation requirement, the attorney must obtain a "verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert" that "corroborate[s] reasonable grounds to support the claim of medical negligence." § 766.203(2), Fla....

...t protects citizens' constitutionally guaranteed access to the courts. First, Dr. Mirza's argument for requiring that each future defendant be individually named in the investigatory affidavit is not compelled or supported by the express language of section 766.203, Florida Statutes....

...I think this is in derogation of the statute. See § 766.202(5), Fla. Stat. (2004). The majority posits several reasons for concluding that Trombley complied with the pre-suit investigatory affidavit requirement. First, I address the statement that section 766.203 does not require the corroborating affidavit to name each individual defendant....

...Section 766.202(5) defines "investigation" to mean "that an attorney has reviewed the case against each and every potential defendant and has consulted with a medical expert and has obtained a written opinion from said expert" (emphasis added). Furthermore, section 766.203(2) requires the claimant to investigate to determine whether reasonable grounds support the conclusion that "any named defendant in the litigation was negligent in the care or treatment of the claimant." The affidavit of Trombley's expert, Dr....

...been satisfied. See Bonati, 911 So.2d at 288. Accordingly, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in denying Dr. Mirza's motion to dismiss. See id. What is most troubling is the language of the majority that seeks to rewrite section 766.203(2)....

...d would grant the petition for writ of certiorari and remand for further proceedings. Combs v. State, 436 So.2d 93, 95-96 (Fla.1983). NOTES [1] The statute requires the prospective plaintiff to serve the affidavit with his or her presuit notice. See § 766.203(2), Fla....

notice and investigation requirements. See, e.g., § 766.203, Fla. Stat. There are also extensive statutory

opinion in compliance with the requirements of F.S. 766.203(2), F.S. 766.202(6) and F.S. 766.102.” This

...Such ultimately is the court's decision upon a proper consideration of the nature of the records requested and the broad coverage of Amendment 7. Although the documents before us do not include petitioners' presuit verified corroboration documents, which are a prerequisite for proceeding in a medical negligence action, see section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (2005), petitioners' amended complaint alleged they had complied "with all conditions precedent to this lawsuit as provided in Chapter 766, Florida Statutes." Respondents do not assert otherwise....

...his motion to dismiss a medical malpractice complaint, brought against him by Jose Viera in his capacity as personal representative of the estate of his deceased wife, Yoandry Viera, made on the ground that Mr. Viera failed to satisfy the pre- suit notice requirements of section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (2011)....

...Nieves’ petition is that the trial court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his motion to dismiss. However, counsel for Dr. Nieves never asked for an evidentiary hearing. Rather, counsel repeatedly argued Dr. Simon’s affidavit did not meet the requirements of section 766.203(2) “on its face.” Opposing counsel likewise cast his argument in absolute terms, stating, as he closed, “To me, there is no question that we met the burden as required and that their motion should be denied.” We find it is not, ipso facto, as Dr....

...Stat. (2012). With the notice, a potential plaintiff is required to submit a “verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert 4 as defined in s. 766.202(6)” which supports a claim of medical negligence. § 766.203(2)(b), Fla....

...Petitioners moved to dismiss because Rhodes' presuit written expert report, from a physician who specializes in plastic surgery, offered opinions regarding the medical care provided by Dr. Riggenbach, who specializes in orthopedic surgery. Because Rhodes failed to comply with the requirement of sections 766.203, 776.202(6), and 766.102(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2014), that he provide a written medical expert opinion from a specialist in the same specialty as the defendant health care provider, the complaint should have been dismissed, unless those st...

...and an orthopedic surgeon practiced the same specialty. Dr. Kreegel's affidavit was statutorily insufficient; therefore, Rhodes failed to comply with the presuit requirements of filing a medical malpractice complaint against Petitioners pursuant to section 766.203....

...n investigation and denied negligence, and where a verified medical opinion was supplied prior to suit being filed. We disagree. The plaintiffs sent notices of intent to initiate litigation without including the medical expert opinion as required by section 766.203, Florida Statutes (1991)....

...medical negligence claims nor to deny parties access to the court on the basis of technicalities"). With this principle in mind we proceed to analyze the facts of this case. Plaintiffs sought to strike Dr. Pagan's pleadings on the basis of sections 766.203(3) and 766.206(3), Florida Statutes. As pertinent to the defendant in this case, Section 766.203(3) requires the defendant to perform "an investigation to ascertain whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that; (a) [t]he defendant was negligent in the care or treatment of the claimant; and (b) [s]uch negligence resulted i...

...As relevant to this appeal, the complaint alleged that Dr. Ghamra is the owner and sole member of Lung Associates of Sarasota. In the June prior to filing the lawsuit, Ms. Williams served a Notice of Intent to Initiate Medical Negligence Litigation pursuant to sections 766.106 and 766.203, Florida Statutes (2023)....

...must "conduct an investigation to ascertain that there are reasonable grounds to believe that" the prospective defendant "was negligent in the care or treatment of the" prospective plaintiff and that the "negligence resulted in injury to the" prospective plaintiff. § 766.203(2)....

...Martinez served her notices of intent to initiate litigation for medical malpractice on Dr. Perez Ortiz and Perez Eye Center on July 27, 2017. See § 766.106(2)(a). Neither of the notices of intent were served with the required sworn written medical corroboration. See § 766.203(2)....

...statute of limitations, which thus required the complaint to be dismissed with prejudice. After a hearing on the motion to dismiss, the trial court found that the notices of intent were not accompanied by the required written corroborating medical expert opinion. See § 766.203(2). The trial court determined that while Ms....

...1st DCA 1997)). Pursuant to section 766.106(2)(a) a potential plaintiff must serve on any potential defendant a presuit notice of intent to initiate litigation for medical negligence (notice of intent) after the potential plaintiff completes a presuit investigation pursuant to section 766.203(2)....

...The potential plaintiff must also provide any potential defendant with a "verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert as defined in s. 766.202(6)," which serves as corroboration of "reasonable grounds to support the claim" for medical negligence litigation. § 766.203(2). Before we consider the statutory "same specialty" requirements and the trial court's related findings, we must first address the technical challenge raised by Dr....

...Perez Ortiz and Perez Eye Center as to the timeliness of Dr. Hamburger's affidavit when Ms. Martinez did not provide the required sworn, written medical expert opinion contemporaneously with her notice of intent to initiate litigation. 7  Section 766.203(2) states that the verified written medical expert opinion "shall be provided ....

...; University of Miami v. Bogorff, 583 So.2d 1000, 1004 (Fla.1991) (statute of repose would still bar the plaintiffs action even if cause of action did not accrue before the repose period expired). Appellant also contends the statutory requirement of section 766.203, that an affidavit of a medical expert opining that the defendant health provider was negligent be attached to the presuit notice, effectively bars access to courts because a plaintiff is required to present proof of a breach of duty and causal relationship before there is an opportunity to make discovery....

...In this medical malpractice action, petitioner as plaintiff seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the trial court’s order permitting discovery. The trial court’s order allows limited discovery from Ms. Ellen J. Rie-back, the nurse retained by the plaintiff as a consultant for the presuit investigation process required by section 766.203, Florida Statutes (1991)....

...Counsel may show good faith by a written opinion of an expert "that there appears to be evidence of medical negligence." Id. After completing the pre-suit investigation and prior to filing a complaint for medical negligence, the plaintiff must notify the defendant of her intent to initiate litigation. § 766.106(2). Section 766.203(2) requires that the notice be corroborated by a "verified written medical expert opinion" furnished to the defendant. § 766.203(2)....

...ng with prejudice them medical malpractice complaint against Dr. Peter Hickox and the Cleveland Clinic (“Hickox”). The court found that the Goradeskys failed to file a corroborating expert affidavit in accordance with the presuit requirements of section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (1993), and, alternatively, that they substantially and wil-fully failed to comply with other statutory presuit requirements....

...The record reflects that the two-year statute of limitations period under section 95.11(4), Florida Statutes (1993), for the Go-radeskys’ bringing their claim for negligence against Hickox began running in August, 1993. 1 They failed to file, pursuant to section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (1993), any affidavit of a qualified medical expert establishing that reasonable grounds existed to support their claim for negligence at any time before their ease was dismissed on April 3, 1997....

...imitations period. Kukral v. Mekras, 679 So.2d 278, 284 (Fla.1996); see also Hospital Corp. of America v. Lindberg, 571 So.2d 446 (Fla.1990)(holding that a notice of intent was timely so long as it was filed within the statutory limitations period); § 766.203(2), Fla....

comply with the statutory requirements of section 766.203, Florida Statutes (1988). We reverse. On February

...This medical-malpractice appeal requires us to decide whether Plaintiff’s alleged expert, Dr. Richard Shure, M.D., was a “medical expert” qualified under sections 766.102(5) and 766.202(6), Florida Statutes (2019), to provide a pre-suit, corroborating “verified written medical expert opinion,” as required by section 766.203(2)....

...conclusion that Dr. Shure was unqualified to serve as a pre-suit corroborating expert under sections 766.102 and 766.202. Such matters of statutory interpretation are “subject to de novo review.” State v. Ingram, 299 So. 3d 546, 547 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020). Section 766.203(2) requires a medical-malpractice claimant to conduct a pre-suit investigation....

...As part of that investigation, the claimant must submit “a verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert as defined in section 766.202(6), at the time the notice of intent to initiate litigation is mailed, which statement shall corroborate reasonable grounds to support the claim of medical negligence.” § 766.203(2), Fla....

...nally, the fourth affidavit was untimely. Without addressing this argument, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss. HRMC's petition for writ of certiorari challenges whether the Wirths satisfied the pre-suit notice requirements set forth in subsection 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (2007)....

...as resulted in a material injury that cannot be remedied on appeal. Bared & Co., Inc. v. McGuire, 670 So.2d 153, 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). This court's prior precedent establishes that certiorari review is proper when a plaintiff fails to comply with section 766.203's pre-suit notice requirements....

...State, 436 So.2d 93, 96 (Fla.1983). An injured plaintiff who desires to institute a medical malpractice suit must first conduct an investigation that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant(s) was negligent and that negligence resulted in injury. § 766.203(2)....

...After conducting this investigation, the plaintiff must then serve each defendant with a notice of intent to initiate litigation. § 766.106(2)(a). This notice must be corroborated with a "verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert as defined in s. 766.202(6)." § 766.203(2)....

...The legislative policy underlying the medical malpractice area supports our decision in this case. In an effort to foster full investigation of medical malpractice claims, promote pre-suit settlement of claims and prevent the filing of baseless litigation, the legislature enacted section 766.203, Florida Statutes (1997), which requires a potential plaintiff to conduct a thorough pre-suit investigation of the medical viability of a malpractice claim....

...a statutory presuit investigation. This investigation determines whether the prospective plaintiff has “reasonable grounds to believe” that a prospective defendant provided negligent care or treatment that caused injury to him or her. See § 766.203(2)(a)–(b), Fla....

...(2021). As part of this process, a prospective plaintiff must submit a “verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert . . ., which statement shall corroborate reasonable grounds to support the claim of medical negligence.” Id. § 766.203(2). The Legislature defines “medical expert” as “a person duly and regularly engaged in the practice of his or her profession who holds a health care professional degree from a university or college and who meets the requirements of an expert witness as set forth in s....

...Contextually, section 766.102(5)’s reference to “the same specialty” is part of a set of qualifications necessary before an expert witness can testify about the prevailing professional standard of care in medical malpractice actions. See §§ 766.202(6), 766.203(2)....

...mation available,3 and concluded that Jones complied with the pre-suit notice 2 Chapter 766 contains several prerequisites to filing a medical malpractice action. See, e.g., § 766.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2023); § 766.106(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2023); § 766.203(2), Fla....

...She then filed her malpractice action without providing the corroborative statement. When the doctor moved to dismiss because plaintiff had refused (plaintiff made it clear in her notice that she had the corroborative statement but refused to provide it to the doctor) to comply with the presuit investigation requirements of section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (1991), she persevered in her insistence that the doctor was not entitled to the statement....

...asonable grounds for initiating medical negligence” litigation. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, stating: “Plaintiff failed to provide a verified written medical expert opinion pursuant to Florida Statute § 766.203 within 180 days of October 31, 2008 which is the date of [the] Statute of Limitations.” 1 The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. We note, at the outset, that the defendants have not challenged the content of the original letter from the plaintiffs’ medical expert, but rather its lack of verification. The controlling statutes are as follows. Section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (2006), provides: Presuit investigation by claimant.— Prior to issuing notification of intent to initiate medical negligence litigation pursuant to s....

...2d 604, 607 (Fla. 2006). B Tomas first contends the trial court erred in dismissing his claims against Mariners on the basis that his corroborating presuit affidavit was insufficient. We are not so persuaded. Section 766.203, Florida Statutes (2022), governs the presuit investigation of medical negligence claims. Subsection (2) requires corroboration of reasonable grounds to support a claim “from a medical expert as defined in s. 766.202(6).” § 766.203(2), Fla....

...DeChurch of Fowler White Burnett, P.A., Miami, for appellee Martin Memorial Medical Center, Inc. PER CURIAM. We affirm the order granting a motion to dismiss a medical negligence complaint for failure to comply with the corroboration requirements of section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (2018)....

...e as to the nurses and supervisors, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in denying [the hospital’s] motion to dismiss . . . .”); Duffy v. Brooker, 614 So. 2d 539, 545–46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (interpreting “sections 766.203(2) and 766.203(3) to require that the ‘corroboration’ statements outline the factual basis for the medical experts’ opinions” and rejecting as insufficient “conclusory allegations” that did not “sufficiently indicate the manner in which the [m...

...idavit failed to comply with statutory requirements in that it failed to "specify whether any previous opinion by the same medical expert has been disqualified and if so, the name of the court and the case number in which the ruling was issued." See section 766.203(4), Florida Statutes....

...cable claim or defense ultimately asserted." Section 766.205(2), Florida Statutes (emphasis added). "The medical expert opinions required by this section shall specify whether any previous opinion by the same medical expert has been disqualified..." Section 766.203(4), Florida Statutes (emphasis added)....

...To conclude otherwise would negate the express language and belie the clear intent of Chapter 766. * * * As for Plaintiffs' failure to include information in Drs. Schwartz's and Semel's affidavits regarding whether a court has ever disqualified them as experts, that omission flies in the face of the express language of § 766.203(4), Florida Statutes which clearly requires such a statement....

...rately assess the true expertise of the person giving the opinion and, consequently, to properly analyze the threat posed by the Plaintiffs' claims. In sum, since the Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the presuit requirements of §§ 766.106 and 766.203, Florida Statutes, their complaint must be dismissed pursuant to § 766.206(2). Thus, the failure to comply with discovery requests after a second notice coupled with the failure to comply within the statute of limitations with section 766.203(4) convinces us that the court erred in not dismissing the complaint for failure to meet the condition precedent of statutory compliance....

the medical negligence action as required by section 766.203(2)(b), Florida Statutes. The plaintiff in this

...Brinson alleged that Dial 4 Care had been negligent because it failed to provide medical care and treatment in accordance with professional standards. The operative complaint contained several statements of compliance, 2 including one alleging that Brinson had complied with section 766.203, Florida Statutes....

...The purpose of requests for records under this section is to assist the claimant in its presuit investigation of the alleged medical negligence—an investigation that is statutorily mandated to take place before the notice of intent to initiate litigation is sent. See § 766.203(2), Fla....

...Indeed, the section providing for presuit notice letters states that such notice is to be sent to putative defendants “[a]fter completion of presuit investigation.” Id. at § 766.106(2)(a). At the time a notice of intent letter is sent to the putative defendants, section 766.203 requires that claimants have a good faith belief that each putative defendants’ alleged negligence contributed to the injuries at issue. The penalty for a putative defendant’s failure to provide requested medical records...

notifying you in accordance with Florida Statute Section 766.203 that she intends to pursue a medical malpractice

statute’s pre-suit screening requirements. See § 766.203, Fla. Stat. (1993). The trial court determined

Campagnulo, 588 So.2d 982, 983 (Fla. 1991). 12 Section 766.203(2), Fla. Stat. 13 See, s. 455.501(4), Fla.

...Corroboration of reasonable grounds to initiate medical negligence litigation shall be provided by the claimant’s submission of a verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert as defined in s. 766.202(6) . . . . § 766.203(2), Fla....

...et.” 62 So. 3d 1129, 1137 (Fla. 2011). The First District noted that Carmody “complied with the presuit procedural steps necessary to go forward with her medical negligence claim, including filing a corroborating medical expert opinion under § 766.203(2),” and that the “trial -9- court complied with the procedural requirements of the law.” Carmody, 331 So....

...Greber asserts a loss of consortium claim related to the injury allegedly sustained by his wife. 3 Section 766.207(4) governs the composition of the arbitration panel and provides for an administrative law judge, furnished by DOAH, to serve as the chief arbitrator. 4Section 766.203 describes the parties’ respective responsibilities of presuit notice and investigation....

....207 of the Florida Statutes. What the parties hotly dispute is whether they agreed to waive presuit notice and investigation procedures that are normally a condition claims and defenses corroborated with written opinions from medical experts. § 766.203, Fla....

...of Pensacola, 635 So.2d 945, 948-49 (Fla.1994); Patry v. Capps, 633 So.2d 9 (Fla.1994); Weinstock v. Groth, 629 So.2d 835 (Fla.1993); Paulk v. Nat’l Med. Enters. Inc., 679 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Section 766.106(2), provides: After completion of presuit investigation pursuant to s. 766.203 and prior to filing a claim for medical malpractice, a claimant shall notify each prospective defendant by certified mail, return receipt requested, of intent to initiate litigation for medical malpractice. A “claim for medical malpractice” is defined as “a claim arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services.” § 766.106(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2000). Presuit investigation under section 766.203, applies to “medical negligence” claims. See § 766.203(1), Fla....

...y with medical malpractice presuit requirements. As part of its presuit investigation, the estate submitted an affidavit of Mark Khilnani, M.D., to serve as the required medical expert opinion corroborating its claims against Ghassan Fahel, D.O. See § 766.203, Fla....

...comply with medical malpractice presuit requirements. As part of its presuit investigation, the estate submitted an affidavit of Mark Khilnani, M.D., to serve as the required medical expert opinion corroborating its claims against Ghassan Fahel, D.O. See § 766.203, Fla....

...B. HCA Defendants Mr. Manzaro also served a notice of intent on HCA, Inc. (“HCA”), for the HCA Defendants, on April 4, 2015. He contended that his obligation to submit a verified written medical expert opinion (required by section 766.203(2)) was inapplicable because of HCA’s failure to provide relevant medical records to him within ten days, as required by section 766.204(1), waiving the requirement of written medical corroboration (section 766.204(2))....

...We affirm. I. In November 2018, Dr. Chavez performed a breast lift and implant replacement surgery on Hermoso at New Life. Following the procedure, Hermoso served a notice of intent to initiate medical negligence litigation against Dr. Chavez and New Life pursuant to section 766.203, Florida Statutes. In her notice, Hermoso alleged (1) Dr....

...misplacement. 2  Dr. Chavez responded to the notice and denied the claim, asserting Hermoso failed to comply with the statutory pre-suit investigation requirement for a medical negligence action under section 766.203....

...5 an investigation to ascertain that there are reasonable grounds to believe that: (a) Any named defendant in the litigation was negligent in the care or treatment of the claimant; and (b) Such negligence resulted in injury to the claimant.” § 766.203(2)(a)-(b), Fla....

...by the claimant’s submission of a verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert . . . at the time the notice of intent to initiate litigation is mailed, which statement shall corroborate reasonable grounds to support the claim of medical negligence.” § 766.203(2), Fla....

...in the claimant’s care or treatment and that this negligence caused the claimant’s injury.” Kukral v. Mekras, 679 So. 2d 278, 280 (Fla. 1996). This mandates an investigation and corroboration of that investigation by “a verified written medical expert opinion.” § 766.203(2), Fla....

...2d at 282 (emphasis omitted). Under the Medical Malpractice Act, Hermoso was required to conduct a pre-suit investigation sufficient to ascertain reasonable grounds for her claim and to corroborate those grounds with a verified written medical expert opinion before issuing her notice of intent. See § 766.203(2), Fla....

...the subject of an entirely different chapter with includes extensive procedures, investigations, and protections, including pre-suit investigations: “Presuit investigation of medical negligence claims and defenses . . . shall apply to all medical negligence claims and defenses.” § 766.203(1), Fla....

...ert. Id. § 766.202(5). After completing the statutory presuit investigation, but prior to filing a claim for medical malpractice, the claimant must also notify each prospective defendant "of intent to initiate medical malpractice litigation.” Id. § 766.203(3)....

...quirements, which include conducting a presuit investigation process to ascertain whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant medical provider was negligent, and that the negligence resulted in injury to the claimant." (citing § 766.203(2)(a)-(b), Fla....

...Mary's Hosp., Inc. v. Phillipe , 769 So.2d 961 , 969-70 (Fla. 2000) ), thus allowing the parties "to avoid lengthy litigation of claims and the associated costs of such litigation," id. (citing Kukral v. Mekras , 679 So.2d 278 , 280 (Fla. 1996) ). Section 766.203, Florida Statutes, specifically governs the presuit investigation requirements of medical negligence claims by prospective parties....

without a corroborating affidavit as required by section 766.203, stating: As of this date, we have received

...Petitioner received a notice of intent to initiate litigation for medical malpractice from respondent’s husband, Antonio Peral-ta, in December of 1999. Neither the notice nor the verified opinion of Richard Turner, M.D., sent with the notice of intent as required by section 766.203(2), mentioned respondent, Mrs....

...t investigation was designed to weed out frivolous claims. That statutory framework is included in chapter 766. Particularly, the court noted that: The requirements of pre-suit investigation apply to “all medical negligence” claims and defenses. § 766.203(1), Fla....

...766.106, the claimant shall conduct an investigation to ascertain that there are reasonable grounds to believe that: (a) [a]ny named defendant in the litigation was negligent in the care and treatment of the claimant; and (b), [s]uch negligence resulted in injury to the claimant.” § 766.203(2)(a),(b), Fla....

...ice and investigation, it becomes apparent that to be a claimant under the Act, the person presenting the claim must have received negligent medical care and treatment from a medical care provider that resulted in the person’s injury or death. See § 766.203(2), Fla....

...Mary’s, the supreme court acknowledged that a “claimant” included more than the patient who was directly injured by the act of malpractice. St. Mary’s is inapposite, however, because the purpose of the cap requirements in section 766.207 differs from the pre-suit notice requirements of section 766.203(2)....

...the false statement. Cox moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Champion had failed to serve notice of her claim as required by section 766.106, Florida Statutes, and that she had failed to complete a presuit investigation as required by section 766.203....

...e: immune versus non-immune defendants, and notices to defendants versus notices to statutorily designated state agencies. It is true that claimants and defendants alike (even immune defendants) are subject to presuit investigation requirements. See § 766.203(2), Fla....

medical expert opinion in accordance with section 766.203 in order to initiate her medical malpractice

...pellees, Leonard J. Morillo, M.D., Leonard J. Morillo, M.D., P.A., and Doctors Surgery Center Partnership d/b/a Doctors Surgery Center, Inc. The trial court determined that Jackson had failed to conduct a proper pre-suit investigation as required by section 766.203, Florida Statutes (2003), because there was no corroboration of reasonable grounds to support the claim of Dr....

...eferred to a corneal specialist. Dr. Johnson also concurred in the opinion that Jackson did not require hospitalization. Dr. Morillo's motion for summary judgment asserted that Jackson failed to comply with the pre-suit investigation requirements of section 766.203 and that he had no legal duty because he was not Jackson's healthcare provider....

...Morillo's phone participation. The appellant contends that the notice of intent served on Dr. Morillo advised him that his care and treatment of Jackson was at issue, as corroborated by Dr. Lee's affidavit, and fully complied with the spirit *1128 and specific provisions of section 766.203....

...The statute's plain language, the purpose of the statutory requirement, and the rule requiring that the malpractice presuit requirements be construed in a manner that protects citizens' constitutionally guaranteed *1129 access to the courts support our decision to reject a narrow construction of section 766.203 that would compel plaintiffs to individually name each future defendant in the investigatory affidavit....

...Accordingly, we REVERSE the summary final judgment and REMAND for further proceedings. REVERSED and REMANDED. GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ., concur. THOMPSON, J., dissenting with opinion. THOMPSON, J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent for two reasons. First, Danny Ray Jackson failed to comply with section 766.203, Florida Statutes (2003)....

...rated that no reasonable investigation had been conducted. However, because the affidavit clearly showed that a reasonable investigation had been conducted with respect to Dr. Mirza's actions, his dismissal was unwarranted. We reasoned in Mirza that section 766.203 did not require that each future defendant be individually named in the investigatory affidavit as a prerequisite to suit and such a requirement would seem inconsistent with the recognized purpose underlying the affidavit requirement....

...Susac in the investigation. Mrs. Tippett herself requested a copy of her records from Dr. Susac’s office. These records were then sent to Dr. Barclay for an opinion as to whether there had been any negligence on the part of Dr. Susac in his treatment of Mrs. Tippett. See § 766.203, Fla....

...Although Dr. Susac recognized immediately that his records contradicted the opinion of Dr. Barclay, nothing was done during the ninety-day presuit screening period to call this to the attention of Mrs. Tippett’s attorney or Dr. Barclay. As provided by section 766.203(3)(b): Corroboration of lack of reasonable grounds for medical negligence litigation shall be provided with any response rejecting the claim by the defendant’s submission of a verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert as defined in s....

...denying negligent injury. *154 The perfunctory affidavit, filed on Dr. Su-sac’s behalf, declared that he was not negligent, but it did not cite the corroborating records in Dr. Susac’s file and otherwise failed to comply with the requirements of section 766.203(3)(b)....

...As this information becomes available, an expert’s opinion will likely change. 739 So.2d at 72 (emphasis added). Had Mrs. Tippett’s attorney investigated the completeness of Dr. Susac’s records in the period after the notice of intent and made these records available to Dr. Barclay in accordance with section 766.203(3), we are confident that suit would not have been filed against Dr....

...Damus during presuit investigation of a medical malpractice claim. We grant the petition, quash the order under review, and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of Dr. Damus’s good faith rejection of the malpractice claim against him. The presuit investigation statute for medical negligence claims, section 766.203, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), which is calculated to resolve disputes between physicians and patients in a more efficient manner provides in pertinent part: (3) Prior to issuing its response to claimant’s notice of intent to initiate litigation, during the time period for response authorized pursuant to s....

...xpert ... at the time the response rejecting the claim is mailed, which statement shall corroborate reasonable grounds for lack of negligent injury sufficient to support the response denying negligent injury. Dr. Damus, the petitioner, contends that section 766.203(3) does not apply where, as here, no written response rejecting the claim was sent. Specifically, petitioner argues that, because section 766.203(3) merely provides that “any response rejecting a claim must be accompanied by submission of a verified written medical opinion,” no such medical opinion is required where no response is filed. 1 The Parvezes contend that, although Dr. Damus did not send a response denying liability, he did deny liability in his answer to the complaint and *1138 that, therefore, section 766.203(3) applies....

...The notice identified Pusha and Teague as personal representatives of Freeman’s estate. Shands responded by letter dated September 26, 2011, stating that the notice was deficient because it did not contain a written medical expert opinion corroborating Pusha’s claim as required by section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (2011). On May 24, 2012, Pusha, as personal representative of Freeman’s estate, filed a complaint alleging that Shands’ negligence directly led to Freeman’s death. Pusha did not obtain a written medical expert opinion before she filed suit. In 2015, Shands moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds that Pusha failed to comply with the presuit requirements of section 766.203(2) because she never obtained a written medical expert opinion corroborating her medical malpractice claims. Pusha argued that Shands waived this presuit requirement because Shands failed to produce Freeman’s medical records during presuit discovery as required by section 766.204(2), Florida Statutes....

...llow). One of the requirements is for the claimant to investigate whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a defendant named in the suit provided negligent care or treatment and that such negligence resulted in an injury to the claimant. § 766.203(2), Fla. Stat....

...Once a claimant has undertaken the investigation required by the Act and before filing suit, the claimant must submit a verified written medical expert opinion to corroborate that there are reasonable grounds to support the claim of medical negligence. § 766.203(2), Fla....

...Herber was under no obligation to furnish a corroborating affidavit with her notice of intent or any time thereafter.” Under subsection 766.204(2), Florida Statutes (2009), the hospital’s failure to timely provide medical records waived the requirement of a “written opinion” under subsection 766.202(5) and section 766.203, Florida Statutes (2009)....

...Robertson, 693 So.2d 619, 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)). The presuit process requires a claimant to investigate whether the defendant was negligent in the care or treatment of the claimant and whether such negligence re- *350 suited in injury to the claimant. § 766.203(2), Fla. Stat. A medical expert must corroborate such findings in. a verified written opinion. Id. The expert must meet the qualifications set forth in sections 766.202(6) and 766.102(5). 1 The presuit medical expert opinion is subject to discovery. § 766.203(4), Fla....

...2011) (citation omitted)). Chapter 766 contains several prerequisites for the filing of a medical malpractice action, including that the claimant must conduct a reasonable, good faith investigation 1 and then provide the prospective defendant with a 1 See § 766.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2017); § 766.203(1)-(2), Fla....

...6’s presuit requirements constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. See Dial 4 Care, Inc., 319 So. 3d at 114; PP Transition, LP, 232 So. 3d at 516; Herber, 984 So. 2d at 662. 2 See § 766.106(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2017); § 766.203(2), Fla....

...of intent to sue was facially defective,4 and (iii) respondent failed to provide a corroborating medical expert affidavit. Respondent’s response below focused solely on petitioner’s purported failure to timely provide copies of medical records and the consequent waiver of section 766.203(2)’s requirement that the notice of intent to sue be accompanied by a corroborating medical expert affidavit....

...in with a walker” and that “the family explained to the emergency room people that she would need a walker ‘cause they don’t let you keep your own walker.’” 2 resulted in injury to the claimant.” § 766.203(2)(a)-(b), Fla....

...(2019). That same subsection requires the claimant to provide corroboration of the reasonable grounds to initiate the litigation by submitting “a verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert as defined in s. 766.202(6). . . .” Id. Finally, after obtaining the pre-suit corroboration required by section 766.203(2), “and prior to filing a complaint for medical negligence, a claimant shall notify each prospective defendant by certified mail, return receipt requested, of intent to initiate litigation for medical negligence.” § 766.106(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2019). These pre-suit requirements “apply to all medical negligence claims and defenses,” section 766.203(1), Florida Statutes (2019), and when a claimant fails to satisfy these requirements, “the court shall dismiss the claim.” § 766.206(2), Fla....