Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Oken then sent Williams a letter that requested additional corroboration of the claim. See id. On August 6, 2007, Williams filed a formal complaint in the Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, in and for Duval County, Florida, alleging the same facts contained in the notice. Id. Pursuant to section 766.206, Florida Statutes (2005), Dr....

...1992) and Ragoonanan v. Assocs. in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 619 So.2d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), and in Suarez v. St. Joseph's Hosp., Inc., 634 So.2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), the plaintiffs obtained the necessary medical opinion before filing their notices. Under section 766.206, Florida Statutes (1991), since no reasonable investigation was conducted, the plaintiffs' claim was properly dismissed....

...After completion of presuit investigation and any informal discovery, and even before the actual filing of a medical negligence claim, "any party may file a motion in the circuit court requesting the court to determine whether the opposing party's claim or denial rests on a reasonable basis." Id. § 766.206(1)....

...[2] If the court finds the claimant's notice of intent to initiate litigation is not in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements of sections 766.201-.212, the court may dismiss the claim or impose other sanctions, including costs and attorney's fees. Id. § 766.206(2). Section 766.206(3) is a similar provision addressing the defendant's non-compliance with the statute, and providing for appropriate sanctions such as the striking of the defendant's "response" and the assessment of costs and fees....

...NOTES [1] The record reflects that the defendants' motion to dismiss, which was filed early in the litigation on the same grounds, was denied. 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....

...contemplate the imposition of sanctions for the expense and effort that one party may have unnecessarily caused the other to incur during that presuit period. The defendants failed to seek costs and attorneys fees in the circuit court as provided by section 766.206(2) prior to the time suit was filed....

...er of Doctors' Hospital, on a date purported to be February 21, 1992. It was received on February 26, 1992. The notice of intent to initiate litigation filed on that date does not contain an affidavit of a doctor which is required by Florida Statute 766.206 paren, I think, four. THE COURT: And 209. You said 766.206? Oh, I'm sorry. Maybe— MR. GRAHAM: 766.206, I believe, is the statute....

...ation." The trial court did not hold any evidentiary hearings, and its rulings were not based on the failure of a party to provide discovery [ see § 766.106(6)] or a determination of the reasonableness of the plaintiffs' presuit investigation [ see § 766.206(2)]....

...th in section 95.11." Therefore, as of the time the instant cause of action accrued, there was a statutory requirement that the corroborating medical opinion be provided within the two-year statute of limitations. [3] Merriam Webster Dictionary. [4] Section 766.206(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1991) provides: If the court finds that the corroborating written medical expert opinion attached to any notice of claim lacked reasonable investigation, the court shall report the medical expert issuing such...

...The physicians and hospital filed motions to dismiss the complaint alleging that the Ragoonanans had failed to comply with the presuit requirements of chapter 766, Florida Statutes (1989). The physicians asked the trial court to determine, as provided by section 766.206, Florida Statutes (1989), *484 whether the Ragoonanans' claim rests on a reasonable basis and to determine whether the physicians are entitled to sovereign immunity under section 768.28(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...which statement shall corroborate reasonable grounds to support the claim of medical negligence. After completion of the presuit investigation, any party may request the court to determine whether the opposing party's claim rests on a reasonable basis. § 766.206, Fla....

...r 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)....

...See Watkins v. Rosenthal, 637 So.2d 993, 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (citing Duffy v. Brooker, 614 So.2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), disapproved on other grounds ). In Duffy, the First District concluded that "[w]hen one of the parties files a motion under section 766.206, the trial court must determine whether the opposing party's claim ....

...ief as is appropriate. [5] For example, Florida's medical malpractice statute allows either a potential plaintiff or defendant to offer to arbitrate the amount of damages in a malpractice action rather than have this issue go to trial. Fla.Stat.Ann. § 766.206 (West 1993)....

...Hill then filed the instant suit without complying with the presuit investigation requirements of Chapter 766 based upon her allegation of CFRH's failure to comply in good faith with her requested discovery. CFRH sought summary judgment pursuant to section 766.206, Florida Statutes (1995), based upon Hill's failure to comply with the presuit requirements....

...We also note that the legislature has promulgated statutory safeguards in the form of monetary sanctions and referral for disciplinary action with regard to individuals who are involved in initiating a medical malpractice claim which has no reasonable basis. *863 § 766.206, Fla....

...efore, concluded that Apostolico failed to conduct a reasonable presuit investigation since she did not satisfy the causation prong of section 766.203(2). As a result, the trial court dismissed Apostolico's cause of action with prejudice pursuant to section 766.206(2), concluding that the deficiency could not be rectified within the then expired statute of limitations....

...Beverly, Jr., of Hankin & Beverly, P.A., Gainesville, for appellee. Peter S. Branning, P.A. and Susan J. Silverman, Sarasota, for Amicus Curiae, Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers. BARFIELD, Judge. Dr. Duffy and his medical malpractice insurer appeal a final order imposing sanctions upon the insurer under section 766.206, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITY. Mrs. Brooker filed her complaint against Dr. Duffy in February 1991. Thereafter, she filed a "Motion Requesting Determination as to Whether Defendant's Denial of Claim Rests on a Reasonable Basis Pursuant to § 766.206(1), F.S." Dr....

...He found that any party may request that the court determine whether an opposing party's claim or denial "rests on a reasonable basis," and that if the court finds that the response rejecting the claim "is not in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements," it must impose the sanctions set out in section 766.206(3). He observed that under section 766.206 the burden of persuasion and the initial burden of going forward rest on the moving party and that the burden of persuasion never shifts, but that once the moving party presents a prima facie case that the opposing party's claim or de...

...In fact, it does not even indicate where Dr. Edgerton practices. Moreover, because of these deficiencies, it is impossible to determine intelligently whether or not Dr. Edgerton made a "reasonable investigation" (or, for that matter, whether he made any investigation). See § 766.206(5)(a), Fla....

...ons 766.106(5)-766.106(9) and 766.204-766.205 provide for informal presuit discovery and require each party to provide the other with "reasonable access to information within its possession or control in order to facilitate evaluation of the claim." Section 766.206(1) provides that after completion of presuit investigation and any informal discovery, "any party may file a motion in the circuit court requesting the court to determine whether the opposing party's claim or denial rests on a reasonable basis." Section 766.206(3) provides that if the court finds "that the response mailed by the defendant rejecting the claim is not in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements," it "shall strike the defendant's response, and the person who mai...

...t, the defendant's insurer, or the defendant's attorney, shall be personally liable for all attorney's fees and costs incurred during the investigation and evaluation of the claim, including the reasonable attorney's fees and costs of the claimant." Section 766.206(2) is a similar provision aimed at the claimant's compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements. When one of the parties files a motion under section 766.206, the trial court must determine whether the opposing party's claim or denial "rests on a reasonable basis" and whether the notice of intent to sue *545 or the response rejecting the claim is "in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements of ss....

...tive. If the greater weight of the evidence establishes that the non-moving party did conduct a "reasonable investigation" and that its notice of intent to sue or response rejecting the claim "rests on a reasonable basis," the motion will be denied. Section 766.206(5)(a) provides that if the court finds "that the corroborating written medical expert opinion attached to any notice of claim or intent or to any response rejecting a claim lacked reasonable investigation," it shall report the medical expert to the Division of Medical Quality Assurance or its designee. Section 766.206(4) provides for discipline of an attorney acting without reasonable investigation. We find that the trial judge's rulings regarding the burden of persuasion and the burden of going forward under section 766.206 were correct....

...ningful 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. While section 766.206(3) provides sanctions for failure to conduct a reasonable investigation prior to filing the response, we find no statutory sanction for providing an inadequate corroboration, or no corroboration, with the response rejecting the claim,...

...We make this observation considering that the Florida Legislature may wish to provide such sanctions as an incentive to the parties to comply with its "plan for prompt resolution of medical negligence claims." Section 766.201(2), Florida Statutes (1989). When the claimant resorted to the procedure outlined in section 766.206 to have the trial court determine whether, in fact, a reasonable investigation had been made, the insurer's cryptic response and form "corroboration" statement satisfied the claimant's burden of going forward....

...[2] The claimant's failure to produce the corroborating medical expert opinion prior to the running of the statute of limitations will not result in dismissal of the complaint as a matter of law, but it may subject the plaintiff to sanctions under section 766.106(6) and/or section 766.206(2)....

...766.203(3) is not activated. However, this does not excuse the requirement that the defendant conduct a "reasonable investigation" and determine in good faith whether to reject the claim, failure of which may subject the defendant to sanctions under section 766.206(3) and/or section 766.106(6)....

...However, unlike the prejudgment interest discussed in Argonaut and its progeny, the prejudgment interest at issue in this case is a statutorily created incentive. It is not tied to the liquidation of damages. Rather, it is designed to encourage prompt resolution of medical malpractice claims. § 766.206(1) (2001); St....

...n 766.102(5), the court must report such expert to the Division of Medical Quality Assurance, and "[i]f such medical expert is not a resident of the state, the division shall forward such report to the disciplining authority of that medical expert." § 766.206(5)(a), Fla....

...Because the record clearly shows that the Largies failed to conduct a reasonable investigation as to "each and every potential defendant," specifically, Nurse Wang, the legislative purpose of Chapter 766 was frustrated, mandating elimination of the claim against her from this suit. See § 766.206(2), Fla....

...However, no such written opinion was required. *71 Responding to complaints that this was an empty requirement, the legislature, in 1988, adopted procedures for what was termed "presuit investigation." See Ch. 88-1, §§ 48-53, at 164-68, Laws of Fla. (codified at §§ 766.201-766.206, Fla....

...was no such requirement while that provision was in effect, became the new section 766.106(5). Further, the original section 768.57(5) and its successor section 766.106(5) are designated as dealing with "presuit screening" while new sections 766.201-766.206 are designated as dealing with "presuit investigation." Because these designations exist today side by side, it is apparent that the legislature intended to distinguish between presuit screening, covering the period up to the serving of the n...

...[6] Section 766.205(4) provides in pertinent part: (4) No statement, discussion, 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. [7] For example, sections 766.206(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (1995), provide that a claim will be dismissed and a defense stricken if the notice of intent to initiate litigation or the response thereto does not comply with the reasonable investigation requirements provided. These subsections also provide for the imposition of personal liability on a claimant, defendant, or attorney for the opponent's attorney fees and costs for failure to comply with the reasonable investigation requirements. Section 766.206(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), requires a court to report to the state licensing authority any medical expert who provides a corroborative affidavit that lacks reasonable investigation....

...verable." Citron, 689 So.2d at 1290. This language lends further support that the language in sections 766.106(5) and 766.205(4) only talks about work product. [12] 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, claimant or defendant, not on the medical expert....

Defendants argued, dismissal was warranted under section 766.206(2), Florida Statutes (2011). As a second

...or her intent to initiate a medical negligence action. § 766.106(2)(a). However, a prospective defendant "may file a motion in the circuit court requesting the court to determine whether the opposing party's claim ... rests on a reasonable basis." § 766.206(1). The circuit court must then determine whether the opposing party complied with the reasonable investigation requirements of sections 766.201 to 766.212, which includes reviewing the claim and the verified medical expert opinion. § 766.206(2)....

...uit investigation requirements in a medical malpractice action requires a determination of whether the claim rests on a reasonable basis and whether the claimant complies with the reasonable investigation requirements of sections 766.201 to 766.212. § 766.206(1), (2)....

...Holden are considered to be true and must be construed in the light most favorable to him. See *401 Hosp. Constructors Ltd. ex rel. Lifemark Hosps. of Fla., Inc. v. Lefor, 749 So.2d 546, 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). IV. Applying the reasonableness requirements of section 766.206 In their motion to dismiss, Dr....

...Baker's qualifications could be considered a "similar specialty" to that of Dr. Gu and clarify any inconsistencies in the corroborating affidavit. Further, we note Dr. Gu and the Malka Institute's reliance on the sufficiency of the complaint is misplaced at this *403 stage of the proceedings because the plain language of section 766.206 requires the circuit court to determine the reasonableness of the affidavit under the investigation requirements of chapter 766 rather than the complaint filed thereafter....

...Appellee sought dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the complaint stated a claim for medical negligence and that appellants had failed to comply with the presuit screening requirements of chapter 766, Florida Statutes. The trial court entered an order dismissing the complaint with prejudice under section 766.206(2), Florida Statutes, which requires that a medical malpractice complaint be dismissed if the court finds that the plaintiff is not in compliance with the presuit investigation requirements of chapter 766....

...Under these circumstances, the Court holds where a single incident of medical malpractice gives rise to multiple claims, and such claimants elect to join their claims in a single notice of intent, they may not thereafter attempt to separate their claims for the purposes of responding to an offer to arbitrate made pursuant to section 766.206, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...Lehrer not only verifies that he rendered and signed the opinion, but attaches the opinion and incorporates it by reference into the affidavit. If there was any doubt as to the sufficiency and intent of the verification of Dr. Lehrer's medical opinions, St. Joseph's could have moved to resolve that issue under section 766.206(1) or, in the alternative, Suarez *220 should have been given leave to amend....

...However, he and Dr. Mabry communicated regularly regarding Wolfsen; among other things, keeping each other informed as to drugs each was prescribing. After the informal presuit discovery had been completed, all three doctors filed motions, pursuant to section 766.206(1), Florida Statutes (1989), requesting the trial court to determine whether Wolfsen's claims "rest[ed] on a reasonable basis." Shortly before the hearing, Wolfsen filed an additional affidavit of Dr....

...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)....

...ion of any sort had been performed, as required by sections 766.201-.206, Florida Statutes (1989), before the response denying negligence was issued. Affirming the trial court's decision, this court said: When one of the parties files a motion under section 766.206, the trial court must determine whether the opposing party's claim or denial "rests on a reasonable basis" and whether the notice of intent to sue or the response rejecting the claim is "in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements of ss....

...re allowing them to file suit in courts of this state." Williams, 619 So.2d at 983 (footnote omitted). Accord Stebilla v. Mussallem, 595 So.2d 136 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 604 So.2d 487 (Fla. 1992). The procedure for judicial review set out in section 766.206 cannot be converted into some type of summary proceeding to test the sufficiency, legally or factually, of medical negligence claims....

...mes. Following a hearing, the trial court determined that Dr. Gardner was not a qualified medical expert and therefore the notice of intent was not in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements of sections 766.201-766.212. Pursuant to section 766.206(2), [1] the motions to dismiss were granted....

...ourt on the basis of technicalities." Ragoonanan v. Associates in Obstetrics, 619 So.2d 482, 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Accordingly, we reverse the order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings. FRANK, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., concur. NOTES [1] Section 766.206(2), Florida Statutes (1991), provides, "[i]f the court finds that the notice of intent to initiate litigation mailed by the claimant is not in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements of ss. 766.201-766.212, the court shall dismiss the claim...." [2] Section 766.206(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1991), permits the court to refuse to consider the opinion of a medical expert "who has been disqualified three times pursuant to this section." The record contains no evidence that Dr....

...In addition to being clearly set forth in the Florida Statutes, the presuit investigation process is thoroughly outlined in the Florida Supreme Court's Kukral opinion. If a court finds that a claimant has not complied with presuit procedures prior to filing his complaint, § 766.206(2), Florida Statutes directs the court to dismiss the action....

...nsequently, 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)....

...ited 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)....

...ctice 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. Sanctions were imposed in Duffy, pursuant to section 766.206(3), primarily because the defendant failed to make this additional showing....

...Allen, In-House Legal Counsel, Mayo Clinic Jacksonville, Jacksonville, for Petitioners. Bruce S. Bullock of Bullock & Bullock, P.A., Jacksonville, for Respondent. WOLF, J. We review a Petition for Writ of Certiorari claiming error in the trial court's Order Denying Motion of Defendants to Dismiss Pursuant to Section 766.206, Fla....

...Upon receipt of the notice, petitioners state they sent respondent a letter requesting respondent provide any other corroboration of the claim. Respondent filed a formal complaint basically alleging the same facts contained in the notice. Petitioners filed a Motion of the Defendants to Dismiss Pursuant to Section 766.206, Fla....

...Fort Lauderdale Hospital, 440 So.2d 1282 (Fla. 1983). [19] Chapman v. Dillon, 415 So.2d 12 (Fla. 1982); Lasky v. State Farm Ins. Co., 296 So.2d 9 (Fla. 1974). [20] Claimant is subject to sanctions upon the court's determination that the claim does not rest on a reasonable basis. § 766.206, Fla....

...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)....

...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." Respondents seek to depose the medical expert in preparation for their action under section 766.206(1), in which they seek a judicial determination of whether petitioner's claim rests on a reasonable basis....

...Obviously, the legislature determined that this policy outweighed the need for civil litigants to obtain certain discovery generated by the presuit screening process. Respondents contend that quashing this order would frustrate the trial court in its efforts under section 766.206(1) to determine whether petitioner complied with the reasonable investigation requirements. We disagree. In making its determination pursuant to section 766.206(1), the trial court may consider any relevant evidence, including inferences to be drawn from the text of the notice of intent to sue and its corroborating medical expert opinion....

...I concur in the majority opinion that the documents in question are neither discoverable nor admissible in court by the opposing party, as set forth in section 766.205(4). Respondent concedes that in this case the trial court was not precluded from considering them in camera in making its determination under § 766.206(2), as apparently was done in Williams v....

...Ginsberg, P.A., and Ratiner & Glinn, P.A. and Todd R. Schwartz, Miami, for appellant. Robert A. Kanziger, Miami, for appellee. Before JORGENSON, GERSTEN and GREEN, JJ. GREEN, Judge. This is an appeal from an award of attorney's fees pursuant to sections 766.104(1) and 766.206(2), Florida Statutes (1993) of the "Comprehensive Medical Malpractice Reform Act" after Larkin Hospital Operating Co....

...ility claim against the physician who performed the implant surgery. The appellants in this case never challenged the entry of summary judgment on appeal. Thereafter, L.H.O.C. moved for an award of attorney's fees pursuant to sections 766.104(1) and 766.206(2). An award of attorney's fees is permitted under section 766.104(1) where the court determines that counsel's certificate attesting to a reasonable basis for the medical malpractice allegations was made in bad faith. [2] Section 766.206(2) provides a further basis for attorney's fees if the claimant's notice of intent to initiate litigation is not in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements of sections 766.201-766.212....

...Mental Health Servs., 544 So.2d 1177, 1178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). We believe that this action can no more be characterized as a *903 medical negligence action than if appellants had alleged that the hospital had sold them an unreasonably defective wheelchair. Thus, neither section 766.104(1) or section 766.206(2) provides a basis for an attorney's fee award in this case....

...rated in providing informal discovery, the court shall award attorney's fees and taxable costs against claimant's counsel, and shall submit the matter to The Florida Bar for disciplinary review of the attorney. (Footnote omitted; emphasis added) [3] Section 766.206(2) states: If the court finds that the notice of intent to initiate litigation mailed by the claimant is not in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements of ss....

...The trial court entered a final judgment in accordance with the ver- *877 diet and subsequently entered a final fee judgment against the plaintiffs. On appeal, plaintiffs raised four arguments: (1) the trial court should have struck Dr. Dickens’s pleadings under section 766.206, Florida Statutes, which governs presuit investigation of medical negligence claims; (2) defense counsel’s closing argument was improper and warrants a new trial; (8) the trial court erred in refusing to give a Letzter instruction;...

...nt jointly and severally against Mr. and Mrs. Saunders where Mrs. Saunders’s claim was for loss of consortium. As to the first issue, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to strike Dr. Dickens’s responsive pleading under section 766.206, Florida Statutes (2005)....

...ims, § 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....

...Khilnani attempted to withdraw his affidavit in November 2008, the plaintiffs listed Dr. Khilnani on their Preliminary Expert Witness List. Thereafter, Dr. Khilnani wrote plaintiffs’ counsel several times once again advising that he believed that he was not qualified to act as an expert. In February 2010, pursuant to section 766.206, Dr....

...ion of the claim and send *1303 the defendant notice of intent to sue, along with a corroborating opinion by a medical expert. Fla. Stat. § 766.104 . Florida law mandates the dismissal of claims filed before these prerequisites were met. Fla. Stat. § 766.206 (2)....

...4th DCA 1996). Section 702.015(4) and rule 1.115(c) do not create a mandatory pre- suit requirement such that a trial court has only a ministerial duty to dismiss the complaint if a certification is not included. Compare § 702.015(4), and rule 1.115(c), with § 766.206, Fla....

...for both plaintiffs and blood banks, even though the action does not involve treatment and care by the blood bank. The presuit notice can be sent only after plaintiff complies with the "reasonable investigation requirements of ss. 766.201-766.212." § 766.206(2); see also § 766.106(2). Failure to comply with the reasonable investigation requirements is grounds for dismissal of the complaint. § 766.206(2)....

...in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirement of sections 766.201-766.212, Florida Statutes (2009). See Martin Mem'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Herber, 984 So.2d 661, 663-64 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) ("`[w]hen one of the parties files a motion under section 766.206, the trial court must determine whether the opposing party's claim ......

...Lawrence, Miami, for appellees. Before NESBITT, SHEVIN and SORONDO, JJ. *323 SHEVIN, Judge. Preferred Medical Plan, Inc. ["PMP"], defendant below, appeals an order striking its pleadings for failure to comply with plaintiffs' presuit discovery requests pursuant to section 766.206, Florida Statutes (1997)....

...1992) and Ragoonanan v. Assocs. in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 619 So.2d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), and in Suarez v. St. Joseph's Hosp., Inc., 634 So.2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), the plaintiffs obtained the necessary medical opinion before filing their notices. Under section 766.206, Florida Statutes (1991), since no reasonable investigation was *851 conducted, the plaintiffs' claim was properly dismissed....

...the procedural pre-suit hoops. The legislature has not required that during the presuit notice period plaintiffs prove their claims or prove which of several defendants is responsible for the negligence. "The procedure for judicial review set out in section 766.206 cannot be converted into some type of summary proceeding to test the sufficiency, legally or factually, of medical malpractice claims." Wolfsen, 619 So.2d at 1055....

...ence 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 in injury to the claimant." Section 766.206(3), Florida Statutes provides for the striking of a defendant's response and other sanctions against the defendant and/or the person mailing it if the court finds that the response is not in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements....

...Apter as a defendant below and claiming fraudulent concealment against him. 2 corroborating affidavit from Stephen Cohen, M.D., a general surgeon. 2 Petitioners ultimately moved to dismiss this case with prejudice pursuant to section 766.206, Florida Statutes. Specifically, Petitioners asserted that Ms....

...after filing suit, was provided before the statute of limitations ran. Such a determination is not subject to certiorari review. 1 Based on current precedent, it was appropriate for the trial court to make such a determination in spite of the mandatory language of section 766.206(2), Florida Statutes (2018)....

...endent upon who allegedly committed the negligence, i.e., the sufficiency of the presuit affidavit. The new rule does not purport to cover the full range of statutes [§§ 766.201-.212, .1065] under which a motion to dismiss may be filed pursuant to section 766.206(2), Florida Statutes....

...Stat. (emphasis added). Various sections of chapter 766 spell out the specific presuit requirements and duties both parties must fulfill throughout the presuit process. At the conclusion of that process, either before or after suit is filed, section 766.206 provides a process by which that participation may be challenged. A finding that either party did not comply with the reasonable investigation requirements of sections 766.201-.212 has mandatory consequences and potential sanctions. Section 766.206, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: constitute “public policy” of the state....

...o mailed such notice of intent, whether the claimant or the claimant’s attorney, is personally liable for all attorney’s fees and costs of the defendant or the defendant’s insurer. (Emphasis added). The word “shall” as used in section 766.206(2) is mandatory and not permissive, particularly because “it refers to an action preceding the denial of a substantive right.” State v. Goode, 830 So....

...onal purpose” both before and after the 2013 amendments, id., there no longer should be any doubt about their jurisdictional import and the legislative mandate to dismiss claims that fail to comply with the reasonable investigation requirements of section 766.206(2). Nonetheless, the Carmody court stopped short of overruling any precedent on this issue....

...However, as Justice Canady wrote in his dissent in Morris, a court’s determination of whether a plaintiff filed a statutorily compliant claim “has nothing to do with roadblocks to court access.” Morris, 252 So. 3d at 1167 (Canady, J., dissenting). This is supported in the plain language of section 766.206(2), which states that the court “shall dismiss.” It does not say “shall dismiss with prejudice.” Nothing prohibits plaintiffs from refiling their claims so long as the limitations period has not expired....

...Because, on this record, the trial court should have afforded the parties an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Powell “complied with the reasonable presuit investigation requirements of chapter 766,” Holden v. Bober, 39 So. 3d 396, 403 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); § 766.206, Fla....

...The appellant challenges the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of his four-count civil complaint. Counts I and II contained claims of medical malpractice, but Counts III and IV were founded on other theories. Nevertheless, all counts of the complaint were dismissed pursuant to section 766.206, Florida Statutes....

...medical expert opinion" furnished to the defendant. § 766.203(2). If a court finds the plaintiff's notice of intent to initiate litigation does not comply with the pre-suit investigation requirements of the statute, a court shall dismiss the claim. § 766.206(2)....

...fully failed to comply with presuit discovery. Absent any transcript, pleading, or affidavit contradicting those findings, we are unable to conclude the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice as sanctioned under section 766.206(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...consider facts regarding a purported expert's qualifications that appear in an affidavit served prior to expiration of the statute of limitations. [4] Rather, as explained *807 in Holden, the hearing to determine pre-suit compliance, provided for in section 766.206, Florida Statutes, may necessarily need to be an evidentiary hearing. [5] Section 766.206(1) delays this hearing until after the completion of pre-suit discovery....

...f a malpractice claim. See Kukral v. Mekras, 679 So.2d 278, 280 (Fla.1996). Claimants who fail to conduct a full investigation are subject to having their claims dismissed and are potentially liable for the defendant’s attorney fees and costs. See § 766.206, Fla....

...against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is offered.” § 766.102(5)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2021). The trial court determines whether the prospective plaintiff complied with her statutory presuit requirements, and if she did not, it must dismiss her case. See § 766.206(2), Fla....

...the pre-suit requirements of Chapter 766, Florida Statutes. For the following reasons, we deny the petition. As an initial matter, the University contends that certiorari relief is warranted because the trial court adopted Jones’s proposed order verbatim. “At a minimum, [section 766.206(1)] require[s that] the trial court make an express finding as to [the claimant’s] compliance with the presuit requirements.” PP Transition, LP v....

...After these defendants failed to respond to plaintiffs’ notice of claim pursuant to chapter 766, Florida Statutes (1995), plaintiffs moved the trial court to sanction defendants and strike their defenses for failure to conduct a. good faith investigation pursuant to sections 766.203 and 766.206, Florida Statutes. The trial court refused to do so, and plaintiffs seek certiorari review. Section 766.206(3), under which plaintiffs were seeking sanctions, provides: If the court finds that the response mailed by a defendant rejecting the claim is not in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements, the court shall strike *5...

...The Wolfords argued that respondents had failed to timely provide medical records, that Dr. Boone had failed to attend the scheduled unsworn statement, and that respondents had failed to conduct a presuit investigation, as required by law. Accordingly, the Wolfords argued that section 766.206(8), Florida Statutes (1999), required the court to strike respondents’ answer, and section 766.106(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), justified dismissal of the claims and defenses....

...tten 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. (Emphasis added). Additionally, section 766.206(2), Florida Statutes (2006), provides: If the court finds that the notice of intent to initiate litigation mailed by the claimant is not in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements of ss....

...ate medical malpractice litigation against the midwife who delivered the baby, nothing in the statements addressed any deficiencies in the care provided by the hospital and its nursing staff. Thus, dismissal is required pursuant to the plain text of section 766.206(2), Florida Statutes (2018)....

...nsequently, 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)....

ON MOTION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER DENYING APPELLATE ATTORNEY FEES BARFIELD, Judge. When appellee sought appellate attorney fees, relying on sections 766.206(3) and 59.-46, Florida Statutes, we denied the motion. She now seeks to have us reconsider that denial. She argues that the award of attorney fees pursuant to section 766.206(3) is mandatory, asserting that it is “non-disere-tionary and contingent only upon prevailing on the issue of reasonable investigation.” She also contends that section 59.46 is “non-discretionary and would appear to require a ma...

...level is established.” She suggests that in denying her motion, we “may have overlooked or been unaware of the mandatory nature of the attorney’s fee provisions in Sections 59.46 and 766.-206(3) Florida Statutes.” We have overlooked nothing. Section 766.206(3)....

...tatute or of a contract entered into after October 1, 1977, providing for the payment of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party shall be construed to include the payment of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party on appeal. (emphasis supplied). Section 766.206(3) imposes a limited sanction on the person mailing the noncomplying presuit response to the malpractice claim, making that person personally liable for the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of the claimant incurred during the investigation and evaluation of the claim....

...e that a defendant has not unreasonably refused to participate in informal discovery. We do agree with defendants, however, that the award of attorneys fees is unauthorized by the applicable statute. Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys fees rested on section 766.206(3), which says: “If the court finds that the response mailed by a defendant rejecting the claim is not in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements, the court shall strike the defendant’s response, and the person w...

...or the defendant’s attorney, shall be personally liable for all attorney’s fees and costs incurred during the investigation and evaluation of the claim, including the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of the claimant.” [emphasis supplied] § 766.206(3), Fla....

KLEIN, J. We affirm the order granting the motion of the plaintiff in this medical malpractice case to strike the physician’s pleadings for failing to comply with the presuit provisions of section 766.206, Florida Statutes (2007). It is undisputed that the physician violated section 766.206(3) in that he did not, in his pro se response to the claim, include an affidavit of an expert *637 witness....

...In addition, the trial court noted that the plaintiff lost the opportunity to identify additional defendants, prior to the running of the statute of limitations, because of the physician’s failure to timely respond. We deny plaintiffs motion for appellate attorney’s fees, grounded on section 766.206(3), which provides in part: The person who mailed such response, whether the defendant, the defendant’s insurer, or the defendant’s attorney, shall be personally liable for all attorney’s fees and costs incurred during the inves...

...to determine that there are grounds for a good faith belief that there has been negligence . . . .” § 766.104(1), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). And when an action has been filed but the plaintiff has failed to comply with the presuit requirements, the Legislature demands that “the court shall dismiss the claim.” § 766.206(2), Fla....

...representative of the estate of Juliana Bery, appeals a judgment awarding attorney fees and costs against him after Ghassan Fahel, D.O. successfully challenged the plaintiff’s compliance with Florida’s presuit investigatory requirements under section 766.206, Florida Statute (2011), and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim for medical malpractice....

...The issue here is whether the failure to provide an adequate corroborating affidavit constitutes a failure to comply with reasonable presuit investigation requirements for an award of fees and costs as a sanction. We find that under the language of the statute, it does. Section 766.206(2) provides as follows: If the court finds that the notice of intent to initiate litigation mailed by the claimant does not comply with the reasonable investigation requirements of ss....

...4th DCA 2011) (holding that factors in considering “the reasonableness of the investigation” can include actions taken after the notice of intent was filed). Once the trial court found that the presuit affidavit did not meet the statutory pre-suit notice requirements and dismissed the claim, Section 766.206(2) mandated a finding that the presuit investigation was unreasonable for the purposes of imposing fees and costs. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgment finding the presuit investigation unreasonable and assessing...

...The parties disagree about whether, as a matter of law, the trial court had authority under the Medical Malpractice Act to strike the appellants’ defensive pleadings and enter a default in favor of the appel-lees. Grau argues that the sanction entered by the court was not authorized under section 766.206(3), Florida Statutes (1999). Section 766.206(3) provides, If the court finds that the response mailed by a defendant rejecting the claim is not in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements, the court shall strike the defendant’s response, and the person who mai...

...incurred during the investigation and evaluation of the claim, including the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of the claimant. In Karr v. Sellers, 668 So.2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 679 So.2d 774 (Fla.1996), this court concluded that section 766.206(3) does not authorize the striking of defendant’s pleadings or the entry of a default where the defendant’s response denying the claim did not attach an expert’s affidavit....

...Id. at 631. The court reasoned that the section provides only for the striking of defendant’s “response” and interpreted the word “response” to refer to the written denial of the claim, not the defendant’s pleadings. Id. Notwithstanding section 766.206(3), section 766.106(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1999) provides that during the ninety-day period following the filing of the plaintiffs notice of intent, the defendants shall conduct a reasonable investigation into the claim: During the...

...urposes of this appeal. . Although in Karr the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendants' pleadings also did not specify the precise statutory provision under which she was moving, the plaintiff agreed at oral argument that she was relying only on section 766.206(3). Since Karr was argued solely under section 766.206(3) and this court was not asked to consider section 766.106(3)(a), we do not see our decision today as conflicting with Karr .

...and citations omitted); Goldfarb v. Urciuoli, 858 So. 2d 397, 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (“[T]o allow a party to fully litigate a suit where the proper presuit requirements were not met would frustrate the purpose of the Medical Malpractice Reform Act.”); § 766.206(2), Fla....

investigation requirements. See id. § 766.206(2). If the trial court finds that the prospective

investigation was by the motion provided for in section 766.206, Florida Statutes (1989). Deciding this issue

agreed at oral argument that it was under section 766.206(3), Florida Statutes (1991), which provides:

...This is the second review of an order awarding attorney’s fees in this medical malpractice action. The action was dismissed because plaintiffs counsel failed to conduct a reasonable presuit investigation. Upon dismissal defendant sought fees under section 766.206(2), and the trial court awarded $40,000....

...Campbell, 720 So.2d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), review den., 731 So.2d 650 (Fla.1999). We now have the final order after remand and reverse once again. The court awarded nearly $11,000 in fees, of which only $1,287 were incurred during the period of presuit investigation. Section 766.206(2) limits liability to “all attorney’s fees ......

the circuit court upon appropriate motion. See § 766.206(1); Martin Mem’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Berber, 984

the form of attorney’s fees and costs under section 766.206(2), Florida Statutes (1997), without first

HAWKES, J. This appeal concerns an award of attorney’s fees against Thomas C. 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 of a medical malpractice claim, as well as for post-suit costs spent litigating entitlement to fees. 1 Staples is challenging that portion of the order awarding post-suit costs, arguing section 766.206(2) only authorizes pre-suit expenses incurred while investigating and evaluating a claim, not post-suit expenses spent litigating entitlement to fees....

...1st DCA 2007); see also State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Silber, 72 So.3d 286, 288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Courts engaging in the interpretation of a fee statute must strictly construe the statute’s language. See Hoeltzell v. *1116 Erenstoft, 985 So.2d 636, 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Section 766.206(2), Florida Statutes (2007) — which comes in the midst of the statutory section dealing with medical malpractice actions — states the following: If the court finds that the notice of intent to initiate litigation mailed by the cla...

...t or the defendant’s insurer. (emphasis added). Of importance, section 76.206(2) provides only for those fees incurred “during the investigation and evaluation of the claim.” See Kulcral v. Meleras, 679 So.2d 278 , 281 n. 2 (Fla:1996) (stating section 766.206(2) imposes fees only “for the expense and effort that one party may have unnecessarily caused the other to incur during the pre-suit period”)....

...This language limits the provision’s reach to only fees incurred during the pre-suit phase. It does not extend to expenses incurred after the suit has been filed, such as the fees/costs associated with post-suit litigation over entitlement to fees. This interpretation of section 766.206(2) is supported by caselaw. In Rodriguez v. Campbell, 778 So.2d 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), the Fourth District confronted a situation similar to the instant case in which the trial court awarded fees under section 766.206(2) for the periods both before and after the suit was filed....

...The Fourth District reversed the award and remanded for the trial court to adjust the amount to cover only those fees incurred during the period of pre-suit investigation. Id. Given the holding in Rodriguez , and considering that fee statutes must be strictly interpreted, we find section 766.206(2) does not cover any expenses incurred after suit is filed, even if subsequent litigation concerns entitlement to pre-suit fees. Defendants attempt to circumvent the clear limitations of the provision by arguing the post-suit litigation concerning its entitlement to fees under section 766.206(2) was needless. Defendants claim they were clearly entitled to pre-suit fees under section 766.206(2) as Staples failed to comply with the statutory investigation requirements before mailing the notice of intent to initiate litigation....

...Defendants argue the trial court agreed with them as it entered summary judgment in their favor based on Staples’ failure to comply with these requirements. According to defendants, Staples’ insistence on contesting their clear entitlement to pre-suit fees under section 766.206(2) was frivolous. Therefore, they claim section 766.206(2) should cover any post-suit expenses they incurred while litigating their entitlement to pre-suit fees under the provision. The problem with defendant’s argument is that it ignores the language of section 766.206(2)....

...claim. A distinc *1117 tion must be recognized between the cost of investigating/evaluating a claim and the cost of litigating whether such investigation/evaluation was adequately conducted, which is the question to be answered in fee disputes under section 766.206(2). These are two separate concepts and only the former is covered by the language of section 766.206(2). 2 In short, the trial court erred in using section 766.206(2) to cover defendants’ post-suit expenses spent litigating their entitlement to fees....

...The portion of the trial court’s order awarding $9,285 for such post-suit expenses is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED for a correct fee order to be issued in accordance with this opinion. WOLF and ROBERTS, JJ., concur. . The trial court’s final judgment used section 766.206(2) to assess total fees and costs of $14,485....

...Summary judgment was granted in favor of Dr. Susac without opposition. More than ten months after the trial court entered final summary judgment in favor of Dr. Susac, a motion was filed on his behalf seeking to disqualify Dr. Barclay’s corroborating opinion. The motion cited sections 766.206(1) and (5), 3 and alleged that Dr....

...the litigation and, in fact, the record shows Dr. Susac rendered laudatory treatment for his patient. . Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla.1993), receded from in part, Wells v. Tallahassee Mem’l Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc., 659 So.2d 249 (Fla.1995). . Section 766.206(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), provides in pertinent part: If the court finds that the corroborating written medical expert opinion attached to any notice of claim or intent or to any response rejecting a claim lacked reasonable inve...

...Damus to refuse production of the report at issue would thwart one of the legislative purposes of the Medical Malpractice Reform Act which is to eliminate both frivolous lawsuits against doctors as well as frivolous defenses asserted against the claimants. Specifically, respondents point to section 766.206(3), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), which provides: If the court finds that the response mailed by a defendant rejecting the claim is not in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements, the court shall strike the defendant's response, and the person who mailed such response, ......

...attorney’s fees and costs of the claimant. The Parvezes assert that if the trial court’s order compelling production is not upheld there will be no opportunity to determine whether Dr. Damus’s general denial of liability was in good faith, and section 766.206(3) essentially becomes meaningless....

...Instead, we conclude that the trial court should determine the good faith denial of liability at an evidentiary hearing. Depending on the evidence adduced, the trial court may strike the defendant’s pleadings and assess attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 766.206(3)....

...We hold that section 766.204 does not require Shands to face such a 12 dilemma. When a hospital receives a request to produce medical records in a presuit investigation, it may verify the legal status of the person requesting the records to determine whether they are a claimant under section 766.206, and also take those steps necessary to comply with the requirements of HIPAA and state laws limiting disclosure of confidential medical records. IV....

PER CURIAM. We reverse the trial court’s order dismissing this case for failure to comply with section 766.206, Florida Statutes (2009)....

...ide medical records waived the requirement of a “written opinion” under subsection 766.202(5) and section 766.203, Florida Statutes (2009). When a trial court must decide whether a claim “rests on a reasonable basis” within the meaning of subsection 766.206(1), “the standard as to whether a reasonable basis has been shown should be similar to the standard that is applied to determine whether a complaint states a cause of action.” Holden v....

...upon plaintiffs only a reasonable and limited duty before allowing them to file a suit.” Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Barber, 638 So.2d 570, 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (citations omitted). The reasonableness of an investigation under section 766.206(2) is a factual matter, which is reviewed on appeal for competent, substantial evidence....

...1 The presuit medical expert opinion is subject to discovery. § 766.203(4), Fla. Stat. Failure to provide reasonable access to information during presuit “shall be grounds for dismissal of any applicable claim or defense ultimately asserted.” § 766.205(2),. Florida Statutes. Likewise, section 766.206(2) requires dismissal of the claim where the court finds that the notice of intent does not contain a verified .written medical expert opinion by an expert witness as defined under section 766.202, Florida Statutes....

...lant failed to offer sufficient proof of her proffered expert’s statutory qualifications, and that appellant’s lack of cooperation with appellees’ attempts to verify the expert’s qualifications merited dismissal under sections 766.205(2) and 766.206(2), Florida Statutes....

...2 “After the completion of presuit investigation by the parties . . . and any discovery . . . , any party may file a motion in the circuit court requesting the court to determine whether the opposing party’s claim or denial rests on a reasonable basis.” § 766.206(1), Fla. Stat. (2017) (emphasis added). Thus, when the defendant files a section 766.206 motion, the trial court is required to “make an express finding as to [the claimant’s] compliance with the presuit requirements.” PP Transition, LP v....

...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....

...Specifically, Wexford Health claims Noble’s presuit notice was defective under section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2021). Section 776.106 requires and outlines the pre-suit notice requirements for a medical malpractice action. Thus, Wexford Health argues the amended complaint was required to be dismissed under section 766.206(2)....

...and the Plaintiff still had not appeared for the hearing.” Therefore, it appears dismissal was solely based on Noble’s failure to appear. Second, as explained by the Third District in University of Miami v. Jones, 338 So. 3d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), “when the defendant files a section 766.206 motion, the trial court is required to ‘make an express finding as to [the claimant’s] compliance with the presuit requirements.’” Id....