It’s when the letter is mailed, not when it’s acquired, that determines if a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case complied with Florida regulation on pre-suit notifications, the Florida Supreme Court docket determined Thursday.
“It’s the well timed mailing of the pre-suit discover of intent to provoke litigation, not the receipt of the discover, that begins the tolling of the relevant limitations interval for submitting a criticism for medical negligence,” the courtroom wrote in its William Boyle vs. Myles Samotin opinion.
The choice aimed to make clear conflicting appeals courtroom choices, two of which had discovered that key date is the date the discover is shipped, whereas the twond District Court docket of Enchantment held that it’s the day the defendant acquired the discover. State regulation provides plaintiffs two years after the alleged medical incident to ship the discover in the event that they intend to litigate, and gives a four-year statute of repose.
Attorneys stated the choice may probably have an effect on courtroom rulings on different pre-suit discover necessities required by Florida statutes, together with these for property insurance coverage claims litigation. Senate Bill 76, signed into regulation final yr, requires that claimants give 10-day discover earlier than submitting lawsuits in opposition to insurers. However the wording of the statute reads solely that “such discover have to be given,” and doesn’t handle the mailed vs. acquired query.
Insurers even have raised issues that the regulation requires the discover to be despatched to the Florida Division of Monetary Providers, however that the insurance coverage firm might not obtain it till days later.
Within the Boyle case, the plaintiff waited till the final day to ship the discover, by way of licensed mail, to Dr. Myles Samotin, an orthopedic surgeon with workplaces in Orlando, Sarasota and Bonita Springs. As a result of Samotin didn’t signal the return receipt on the letter till after the time restrict window had closed, the twond District courtroom in 2020 stood on its earlier resolution and sided with the doctor. It held that the plaintiff had waited too late.
However noting the conflicting rulings from the 4th and 5th Districts, the courtroom requested the Supreme Court docket to settle the matter.
“We quash the Second District’s resolution in Boyle, and we approve the licensed battle circumstances of Zacker and Baxter to the extent they’re in keeping with this opinion,” the excessive courtroom’s opinion reads, citing the earlier choices that had led to the battle.
The justices added that the regulation and former courtroom rulings had certainly led to some confusion, however that Florida Statute 766.106 and guidelines of civil process are clear sufficient on the presuit discover requirement.
The Florida Protection Attorneys Affiliation had filed an amicus temporary on behalf of the defendant physician.
Get automated alerts for this matter.