![]() |
PRE-SUIT COURT REVIEW |
![]()
(STATUTES)
Disclaimer: This is part of the 2006 version of Florida Statutes and it is offered for general information purposes. The statutes on this site should not be relied on without reviewing your legal situation with an experienced medical malpractice lawyer and making sure you are using the appropriate version of the statute for your case. The provisions applicable to your potential claim may or may not be the version that was in effect at the time of the incident because some changes to statutes are retroactive and some changes are not. Other statutes and other case law interpreting or applying these statutes may also apply to your case.
(The information on this site applies to Florida only)
766.206 Pre-suit investigation of medical negligence claims and defenses by court.--
(1) After the completion of presuit investigation by the
parties pursuant to s. 766.203 and any discovery pursuant to s.
766.106, 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.
(2) 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. 766.201-766.212, including a review of the claim and a
verified written medical expert opinion by an expert witness as defined in s.
766.202, the court shall dismiss the claim, and the person who mailed such
notice of intent, whether the claimant or the claimant'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 defendant or the defendant's insurer.
(3) If the court finds that the response mailed by a defendant rejecting the
claim is not in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements of ss.
766.201-766.212, including a review of the claim and a verified written medical
expert opinion by an expert witness as defined in s. 766.202, the court shall
strike the defendant's pleading. 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
investigation and evaluation of the claim, including the reasonable attorney's
fees and costs of the claimant.
(4) If the court finds that an attorney for the claimant mailed notice of intent
to initiate litigation without reasonable investigation, or filed a medical
negligence claim without first mailing such notice of intent which complies with
the reasonable investigation requirements, or if the court finds that an
attorney for a defendant mailed a response rejecting the claim without
reasonable investigation, the court shall submit its finding in the matter to
The Florida Bar for disciplinary review of the attorney. Any attorney so
reported three or more times within a 5-year period shall be reported to a
circuit grievance committee acting under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
If such committee finds probable cause to believe that an attorney has violated
this section, such committee shall forward to the Supreme Court a copy of its
finding.
(5)(a) 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 or that the medical expert submitting the
opinion did not meet the expert witness qualifications as set forth in s.
766.102(5), the court shall report the medical expert issuing such corroborating
opinion to the Division of Medical Quality Assurance or its designee. If such
medical expert is not a resident of the state, the division shall forward such
report to the disciplining authority of that medical expert.
(b) The court shall refuse to consider the testimony or opinion attached to any
notice of intent or to any response rejecting a claim of an expert who has been
disqualified three times pursuant to this section.
History.--s. 53, ch. 88-1; s. 29, ch.
88-277; s. 35, ch. 91-110; s. 61, ch. 2003-416; s. 155, ch. 2004-5.
|
|
This site contains only general background information and is not intended to constitute specific legal advice or establish an attorney/client relationship. Malpractice laws vary from state to state and are constantly changing. If you think you may have a malpractice case you should promptly contact a lawyer in your state with experience in handling malpractice cases. |
|
Copyright 1997-2008 - McMillen
Law Firm * A Professional Association |
|
MALPRACTICE QUESTIONS | LOOK UP DOCTORS | DO I HAVE A GOOD CASE? | LIVING WILLS |
|
STATUTES | CASE REPORTS | NURSING HOMES | LINKS | TORT REFORM! |
|
ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP | HOME |