Cases from cite.case.law:

L. MORRIS, v. S. MUNIZ, M. D., 252 So. 3d 1143 (Fla. 2018)

. . . opinion from a qualified medical expert, the Defendants argued, dismissal was warranted under section 766.206 . . . this issue with another expert, dismissal is a proper remedy pursuant to [ sections] 766.205(2) and 766.206 . . . From there, we turn to the trial court's first basis for dismissal under section 766.206(2), which states . . . including obtaining "a verified medical expert opinion by an expert witness" as defined by statute. § 766.206 . . . Dismissal for Failure to Obtain a "Qualified" Expert Witness Under section 766.206(2), if the court finds . . .

SHANDS JACKSONVILLE MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. PUSHA,, 254 So. 3d 1076 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . status of the person requesting the records to determine whether they are a claimant under section 766.206 . . .

PP TRANSITION, LP f k a LP d b a v. MUNSON,, 232 So. 3d 515 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . See § 766.206(1), (2). After a nónevidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion. . . . See § 766.206(1); Martin Mem’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. . . .

BERY, v. FAHEL, D. O., 194 So. 3d 1099 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . challenged the plaintiffs compliance with Florida’s presuit investigatory requirements under section 766.206 . . . Section 766.206(2) provides as follows: If the court finds that the notice of intent to initiate litigation . . . affidavit did not meet the statutory pre-suit notice requirements and dismissed the claim, Section 766.206 . . .

CAMPBELL v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A., 204 So.3d 476 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Compare § 702.015(4), and rule 1.115(c), with § 766.206, Fla. . . .

L. MORRIS, S. v. S. MUNIZ, M. D. OB GYN d b a G. M. D., 189 So. 3d 348 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Likewise, section 766.206(2) requires dismissal of the claim where the court finds that the notice of . . . appellees’ attempts to verify the expert’s qualifications merited dismissal under sections 766.205(2) and 766.206 . . .

PLANTZ, M. D. v. JOHN, M. Ad a k a C., 170 So. 3d 822 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . constitute a failure to comply with the statutory presuit screening requirements under sections 766.203 and 766.206 . . .

SAUNDERS, v. DICKENS, M. D., 103 So. 3d 871 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Dickens’s pleadings under section 766.206, Florida Statutes, which governs presuit investigation of medical . . . Dickens’s responsive pleading under section 766.206, Florida Statutes (2005). . . .

BERRY D. v. PADDEN, M. D., 84 So. 3d 1145 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Additionally, section 766.206(2), Florida Statutes (2006), provides: If the court finds that the notice . . .

C. STAPLES, v. E. DUERR, M. D. P. A. a, 76 So. 3d 1114 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Staples under section 766.206(2), Florida Statutes (2007). . . . The trial court used section 766.206(2) to award fees for pre-suit costs spent investigating the legitimacy . . . Staples is challenging that portion of the order awarding post-suit costs, arguing section 766.206(2) . . . This interpretation of section 766.206(2) is supported by caselaw. In Rodriguez v. . . . The problem with defendant’s argument is that it ignores the language of section 766.206(2). . . .

R. W. v. ARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC. a, 830 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (M.D. Fla. 2011)

. . . . § 766.206(2). . . .

BERY, v. FAHEL, D. O., 88 So. 3d 236 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . In February 2010, pursuant to section 766.206, Dr. . . .

TELLAM, D. P. M. v. S. MUMFORD, 69 So. 3d 1096 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . 984 So.2d 661, 663-64 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“ ‘[w]hen one of the parties files a motion under section 766.206 . . .

HERBER, v. MARTIN MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., 76 So. 3d 1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . We reverse the trial court’s order dismissing this case for failure to comply with section 766.206, Florida . . . trial court must decide whether a claim “rests on a reasonable basis” within the meaning of subsection 766.206 . . . The reasonableness of an investigation under section 766.206(2) is a factual matter, which is reviewed . . .

WILLIAMS, v. OKEN, M. D., 62 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 2011)

. . . Pursuant to section 766.206, Florida Statutes (2005), Dr. . . .

HOLMES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. WIRTH, 49 So. 3d 802 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Rather, as explained in Holden, the hearing to determine pre-suit compliance, provided for in section 766.206 . . . Section 766.206(1) delays this hearing until after the completion of pre-suit discovery. . . .

BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER OF BEACHES, INC. v. RHODIN, 40 So. 3d 112 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . .” § 766.206(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009). . . .

HOLDEN, v. BOBER, M. D. Gu, M. D. W. M. D. P. A. d b a d b a, 39 So. 3d 396 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . .” § 766.206(1). . . . . § 766.206(2). . . . claimant complies with the reasonable investigation requirements of sections 766.201 to 766.212. § 766.206 . . . Applying the reasonableness requirements of section 766.206 In their motion to dismiss, Dr. . . . of the complaint is misplaced at this stage of the proceedings because the plain language of section 766.206 . . .

DERESPINA, v. NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT d b a, 19 So. 3d 1128 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . . § 766.206(2). NBHD relies on the ease of Grau v. . . .

OKEN, M. D. a v. WILLIAMS,, 23 So. 3d 140 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . claiming error in the trial court’s Order Denying Motion of Defendants to Dismiss Pursuant to Section 766.206 . . . Petitioners filed a Motion of the Defendants to Dismiss Pursuant to Section 766.206, Fla. . . .

WOOD, CRNA, v. A. VIRGO O. S. a O. a O. Jr. a M. D. s L. L. P. d b a CRNA M. D. P. A., 3 So. 3d 430 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . See § 766.206(1); Martin Mem’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. . . .

MARTIN MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. HERBER,, 984 So. 2d 661 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . dismiss for failure to comply with statutory presuit screening requirements under sections 766.203 and 766.206 . . . In Duffy, the First District concluded that “[w]hen one of the parties files a motion under section 766.206 . . .

B. HOELTZELL, M. D. P. A. B. M. D. v. ERENSTOFT,, 985 So. 2d 636 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . case to strike the physician’s pleadings for failing to comply with the presuit provisions of section 766.206 . . . It is undisputed that the physician violated section 766.206(3) in that he did not, in his pro se response . . . We deny plaintiffs motion for appellate attorney’s fees, grounded on section 766.206(3), which provides . . .

JOHNSON, T. v. McNEIL, RN M. D. ARNP, 278 F. App'x 866 (11th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 766.206(2) (2005), the claimant may cure the default and proceed with the suit as long as the pre-suit . . . Stat. § 766.206(2) (2005). . . .

BONATI, M. D. M. D. P. A. v. ALLEN, D. O. R. M. D. M. M. D., 911 So. 2d 285 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . had not complied with section 766.203 and that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to section 766.206 . . .

LARGIE v. GREGORIAN, M. D. M. D. P. A. A. R. N. P. C. M. D. M. D. P. A., 913 So. 2d 635 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . See § 766.206(2),. Fla. . . .

SNELL, v. S. FRANZ, M. D., 887 So. 2d 409 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Nevertheless, all counts of the complaint were dismissed pursuant to section 766.206, Florida Statutes . . .

ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE THE MEDICAL LIABILITY CLAIMANT S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT, 880 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 2004)

. . . See §§ 766.203-766.206, Fla. Stat. (2003). . . .

D. WOLFORD v. A. BOONE, M. D. d b a, 874 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Accordingly, the Wolfords argued that section 766.206(8), Florida Statutes (1999), required the court . . .

APOSTOLICO, v. ORLANDO REGIONAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, INC., 871 So. 2d 283 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . result, the trial court dismissed Apos-tolico’s cause of action with prejudice pursuant to section 766.206 . . .

C. WALKER, Jr. v. VIRGINIA INSURANCE RECIPROCAL,, 842 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 2003)

. . . Presuit investigation of medical negligence claims and defenses pursuant to this section and ss. 766.204-766.206 . . .

INTEGRATED HEALTH CARE SERVICES, INC. v. LANG- REDWAY,, 840 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 2002)

. . . Presuit investigation of medical negligence claims and defenses pursuant to this section and ss. 766.204-766.206 . . .

GRABER, v. CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, s, 819 So. 2d 840 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . . § 766.206(1) (2001); St. Mary’s Hosp., Inc. v. Phillipe, 769 So.2d 961, 970 (Fla.2000). . . .

D. GRAU, M. D. P. A. v. R. WELLS, 795 So. 2d 988 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Grau argues that the sanction entered by the court was not authorized under section 766.206(3), Florida . . . Section 766.206(3) provides, If the court finds that the response mailed by a defendant rejecting the . . . So.2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 679 So.2d 774 (Fla.1996), this court concluded that section 766.206 . . . Notwithstanding section 766.206(3), section 766.106(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1999) provides that during . . . Since Karr was argued solely under section 766.206(3) and this court was not asked to consider section . . .

ADELSTEIN, ADELSTEIN, v. UNICARE LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY,, 135 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (M.D. Fla. 2001)

. . . . §§ 766.106 and 766.206. . . .

S. TORREY, v. LEESBURG REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,, 796 So. 2d 544 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . requirements of §§ 766.106 and 766.203, Florida Statutes, their complaint must be dismissed pursuant to § 766.206 . . .

RODRIGUEZ, v. CAMPBELL, M. D., 778 So. 2d 511 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Upon dismissal defendant sought fees under section 766.206(2), and the trial court awarded $40,000. . . . Section 766.206(2) limits liability to “all attorney’s fees ... incurred during the investigation and . . .

BARCLAY, M. D. v. A. SUSAC, M. D., 780 So. 2d 152 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . The motion cited sections 766.206(1) and (5), and alleged that Dr. . . . Section 766.206(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), provides in pertinent part: If the court finds that the . . .

PREFERRED MEDICAL PLAN, INC. a v. R. RAMOS R., 742 So. 2d 322 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . its pleadings for failure to comply with plaintiffs’ presuit discovery requests pursuant to section 766.206 . . .

N. P. NOLAN, M. D. v. TURNER, 737 So. 2d 579 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys fees rested on section 766.206(3), which says: “If the court finds that . . . [emphasis supplied] § 766.206(3), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . .

J. CASCIO, v. ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL OF PORT CHARLOTTE, INC. R. N. M. D., 734 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . See § 766.206, Fla. Stat. (1997). . . .

J. COHEN, M. D. v. DAUPHINEE,, 739 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1999)

. . . Although the majority points out that other provisions of the chapter, i.e. sections 766.206(2), 766.206 . . . (3), and 766.206(5)(a), provide for some accountability, in my opinion, this is not enough. . . . Sections 766.206(2) and (3) only impose personal liability for the opponent’s costs and fees on the attorney . . . (codified at §§ 766.201-766.206, Fla. Stat. (1989)). . . . successor section 766.106(5) are designated as dealing with “presuit screening” while new sections 766.201-766.206 . . . For example, sections 766.206(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (1995), provide that a claim will be dismissed . . . Section 766.206(5)(a), Florida Stat-ules (1995), requires a court to report to the state licensing authority . . .

A. WENDEL, M. D. f u b o v. HAUSER, M. D. d b a, 726 So. 2d 378 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Presuit investigation of medical negligence claims and defenses pursuant to this section and ss. 766.204-766.206 . . .

PARANZINO, v. BERGER, M. D., 755 So. 2d 655 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . prejudice and in awarding sanctions against her in the form of attorney’s fees and costs under section 766.206 . . . Section 766.206, Florida Statutes (1997), provides as follows: (1) After the completion of presuit investigation . . . In addressing the issue of sanctions under section 766.206, this court, in Karr v. . . . corroborative expert affidavit, in and of itself, is insufficient to grant sanctions under section 766.206 . . . In Duffy, the First District held that when one of the parties files a motion under section 766.206, . . .

GORADESKY v. Dr. HICKOX, 721 So. 2d 419 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice as sanctioned under section 766.206 . . .

CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, v. HILL,, 721 So. 2d 404 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . CFRH sought summary judgment pursuant to section 766.206, Florida Statutes (1995), based upon Hill’s . . .

CLARK, v. SARASOTA COUNTY PUBLIC HOSPITAL BOARD, d b a, 65 F. Supp. 2d 1308 (M.D. Fla. 1998)

. . . court finds that a claimant has not complied with presuit procedures prior to filing his complaint, § 766.206 . . . requirements of §§ 766.106 and 766.203, Florida Statutes, their complaint must be dismissed pursuant to § 766.206 . . .

R. PAGAN, M. D. R. M. D. P. A. v. SMITH, 705 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Pagan’s pleadings on the basis of sections 766.203(3) and 766.206(3), Florida Statutes. . . . Section 766.206(3), Florida Statutes provides for the striking of a defendant’s response and other sanctions . . .

FORT WALTON BEACH MEDICAL CENTER, INC. D. D. P. A. v. M. DINGLER L., 697 So. 2d 575 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . Sections 766.201 through 766.206 set forth more detailed requirements for the presuit investigation and . . .

COMMUNITY BLOOD CENTERS OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC. f k a v. DAMIANO,, 697 So. 2d 948 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . .” § 766.206(2); see also § 766.106(2). . . . . § 766.206(2). . . .

KURZWEIL B. v. LARKIN HOSPITAL OPERATING CO. a, 684 So. 2d 901 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . This is an appeal from an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to sections 766.104(1) and 766.206(2), Florida . . . Thereafter, L.H.O.C. moved for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to sections 766.104(1) and 766.206 . . . Section 766.206(2) provides a further basis for attorney’s fees if the claimant’s notice of intent to . . . Thus, neither section 766.104(1) or section 766.206(2) provides a basis for an attorney’s fee award in . . . Section 766.206(2) states: If the court finds that the notice of intent to initiate litigation mailed . . .

PAULK v. NATIONAL MEDICAL ENTERPRISES INC. NME, 679 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . emphasis added), as do provisions allowing the court to determine if a claim or denial is reasonable, § 766.206 . . .

KUKRAL v. D. MEKRAS, M. D. Dr. T. d b a, 679 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1996)

. . . Under section 766.206, Florida Statutes (1991), since no reasonable investigation was conducted, the . . . Id. § 766.206(1). . . . Id. § 766.206(2). . . . Section 766.206(3) is a similar provision addressing the defendant’s non-compliance with the statute, . . . You said 766.206? Oh, I’m sorry. Maybe— MR. GRAHAM: 766.206, I believe, is the statute. . . .

HEBEBRAND v. ARRIEN, M. D. P. A. M. D. M. D. P. A. L. P. N. L. M. D. R. P. T., 673 So. 2d 545 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . their defenses for failure to conduct a. good faith investigation pursuant to sections 766.203 and 766.206 . . . Section 766.206(3), under which plaintiffs were seeking sanctions, provides: If the court finds that . . .

J. KARR, D. D. S. J. D. D. S. P. A. v. SELLERS,, 668 So. 2d 629 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . statutory provision under which she was moving, plaintiff agreed at oral argument that it was under section 766.206 . . . We cannot agree with the plaintiff that the word “response” in section 766.206(3) includes pleadings. . . . the claimant or defendant is “not in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements.” §§ 766.206 . . .

P. TURNER, M. D. v. BOLT, M. D. M. D. P. A., 671 So. 2d 803 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . challenged the sufficiency of appellant’s presuit investigation was by the motion provided for in section 766.206 . . . this issue on summary judgment where appellees failed to move for a determination pursuant to section 766.206 . . . contravenes the spirit of section 766.206 and the ease law interpreting this section. . . .

FABER v. Dr. C. WROBEL, M. D. In P. A. a Dr. M. D. M. M. D. P. A. a M. M. D., 673 So. 2d 871 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . Pursuant to section 766.206(2) the motions to dismiss were granted. . . . Section 766.206(2), Florida Statutes (1991), provides, ”[i]f the court finds that the notice of intent . . . Section 766.206(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1991), permits the court to refuse to consider the opinion of . . .

BOMBALIER, v. LIFEMARK HOSPITAL OF FLORIDA, d b a, 661 So. 2d 849 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . separate their claims for the purposes of responding to an offer to arbitrate made pursuant to section 766.206 . . .

COHEN, M. D. v. DeYOUNG,, 655 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . appeal, without any loss to Cohen of any benefit intended by the Legislature, pursuant to sections 766.206 . . .

HUMANA OF FLORIDA. INC. d b a s L. M. D. L. M. D. P. A. v. McKAUGHAN McKAUGHAN, a FLORIDA BIRTH- RELATED NEUROLOGICAL INJURY COMPENSATION ASSOCIATION, v. McKAUGHAN McKAUGHAN, a SOLOMON, M. D. M. D. P. A. v. McKAUGHAN McKAUGHAN, a, 652 So. 2d 852 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . . § 766.206, Fla.Stat. (1993). . . .

BROADWAY E. v. BAY HOSPITAL, INC. d b a HCA, 638 So. 2d 176 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . The trial court entered an order dismissing the complaint with prejudice under section 766.206(2), Florida . . .

WATKINS, v. ROSENTHAL, M. D. M. D. P. A., 637 So. 2d 993 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . Respondents seek to depose the medical expert in preparation for their action under section 766.206(1 . . . Respondents contend that quashing this order would frustrate the trial court in its efforts under section 766.206 . . . In making its determination pursuant to section 766.206(1), the trial court may consider any relevant . . .

KUKRAL v. D. MEKRAS, M. D. Dr. T. d b a, 647 So. 2d 849 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . Under section 766.206, Florida Statutes (1991), since no reasonable investigation was conducted, the . . . “The procedure for judicial review set out in section 766.206 cannot be converted into some type of summary . . .

SUAREZ, v. ST. JOSEPH S HOSPITAL, INC. a, 634 So. 2d 217 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . Joseph’s could have moved to resolve that issue under section 766.206(1) or, in the alternative, Suarez . . .

WHEALTON, v. L. MARSHALL, M. D. B. Jr. M. D. R. M. D. M. D. M. D. M. D. HCA d b a HCA St. a L. M. D. H. M. D. H. M. D. D. M. D. E. M. D. d b a AMI a a, 631 So. 2d 323 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . the trial court was not precluded from considering them in camera in making its determination under § 766.206 . . .

E. COOPER v. GULF BREEZE HOSPITAL, INC., 839 F. Supp. 1538 (N.D. Fla. 1993)

. . . . § 766.206 (West 1993). . . .

N. WOLFSEN, v. W. APPLEGATE, M. D. R. M. D. J. M. D., 619 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . informal presuit discovery had been completed, all three doctors filed motions, pursuant to section 766.206 . . . of intent to initiate litigation; and had awarded attorney fees to the claimant, pursuant to section 766.206 . . . Affirming the trial court’s decision, this court said: When one of the parties files a motion under section 766.206 . . . The procedure for judicial review set out in section 766.206 cannot be converted into some type of summary . . .

RAGOONANAN, a By RAGOONANAN E. E. v. ASSOCIATES IN OBSTETRICS GYNECOLOGY K. K. M. D. F. II, M. D. P. M. D. M. D. d b a, 619 So. 2d 482 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . The physicians asked the trial court to determine, as provided by section 766.206, Florida Statutes ( . . .

WILLIAMS v. W. POWERS,, 619 So. 2d 980 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Act, sections 766.106(2) and 766.203(2), and thus their suit should be dismissed, pursuant to section 766.206 . . . Sanctions were imposed in Duffy, pursuant to section 766.206(3), primarily because the defendant failed . . .

M. DUFFY, M. D. v. BROOKER,, 614 So. 2d 546 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . When appellee sought appellate attorney fees, relying on sections 766.206(3) and 59.-46, Florida Statutes . . . She argues that the award of attorney fees pursuant to section 766.206(3) is mandatory, asserting that . . . Section 766.206(3). provides that if the trial court finds that the response rejecting the medical malpractice . . . Section 766.206(3) imposes a limited sanction on the person mailing the noncomplying presuit response . . .

M. DUFFY, M. D. v. BROOKER,, 614 So. 2d 539 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . He observed that under section 766.206 the burden of persuasion and the initial burden of going forward . . . Section 766.206(1) provides that after completion of presuit investigation and any informal discovery . . . When one of the parties files a motion under section 766.206, the trial court must determine whether . . . Section 766.206(5)(a) provides that if the court finds “that the corroborating written medical expert . . . Section 766.206(4) provides for discipline of an attorney acting without reasonable investigation. . . .

STEBILLA v. J. MUSSALLEM, M. D., 595 So. 2d 136 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . Section 766.206(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1991) provides: If the court finds that the corroborating written . . .

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, d b a a v. ECHARTE, a ECHARTE, 585 So. 2d 293 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . . § 766.206, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1988). . . . .

DAMUS, M. D. v. PARVEZ, 556 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . Specifically, respondents point to section 766.206(3), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), which provides: . . . Damus’s general denial of liability was in good faith, and section 766.206(3) essentially becomes meaningless . . . court may strike the defendant’s pleadings and assess attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 766.206 . . .