Fla. High Court Resolves Conflict Among District Court Over Med Mal Notice Period
The Florida Supreme Court resolved the conflict holding that the timely mailing of the written notice of intent to initiate litigation—not the receipt of that notice—begins tolling the applicable limitations period for the filing of a complaint for medical malpractice.
June 03, 2022 at 04:55 PM
4 minute read
Just in the nick of time or too little too late? That was the issue resolved by the Florida Supreme Court in its recent opinion in Boyle v. Samotin. In that case, a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case mailed the required presuit notice prior to the expiration of the statute of repose, but the defendant physician did not sign the return receipt for that notice until after the limitations period. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the physician finding that the statute of repose was not tolled until the defendant received the notice. As a result, the plaintiff was three days late instead of one day early. The Second District affirmed and certified conflict with the Fourth District and Fifth District, both of which have rejected the "receipt" argument and ruled that the tolling period commences when the presuit notice is mailed. The Florida Supreme Court resolved the conflict holding that the timely mailing of the written notice of intent to initiate litigation—not the receipt of that notice—begins tolling the applicable limitations period for the filing of a complaint for medical malpractice.
Boyle demonstrates just one of many nuances in medical negligence claims in Florida. When speaking with victims of medical malpractice and their families, one of the first things we discuss is the unique nature of the cases not just factually, but legally. First, unlike other personal injury cases, medical malpractice cases have a two-year statute of limitation rather than four years. Second, Florida law requires that plaintiffs comply with a pre-suit process set forth in Section 766 of the Florida Statutes and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.650. The plaintiffs must provide prospective defendants with written notice of their claim, triggering a 90-day period during which the defendants are to perform an investigation. That 90-day period tolls the statute of limitations and repose.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllU.S. Eleventh Circuit Remands Helms-Burton Trafficking Case Involving Confiscated Cuban Port
3 minute readMiami Lawyer Guilty of Indirect Criminal Contempt But Dodges Paying Legal Fees
4 minute readInitial Steps to Set Up a Fla. Appeal: Your Future Self (or Appellate Attorney) Will Thank You
6 minute readSouthwest Airlines Faces $100M Class Action Over Pay Periods
Trending Stories
- 1Cleary Nabs Public Company Advisory Practice Head From Orrick in San Francisco
- 2New York Environmental Legislation in 2024
- 3Cravath Hires Paul Weiss Antitrust Co-Chair
- 4Contract Technology Provider LegalOn Launches AI-powered Playbook Tool
- 5Court of Appeals Provides Comfort to Land Use Litigants Through the Relation Back Doctrine
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250