REGINALD W. YOUNG ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
MARK L. BRAMLETT, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that Florida's medical liability mediation procedures under Section 768.44 do not apply to dental malpractice claims, even though dentists are defined as health care providers elsewhere in the statute. As a result, the statute of limitations tolling provision for mediation claims did not protect appellants' claims, which were barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
The court held that Section 768.44 does not apply to dental malpractice claims. Although dentists are defined as health care providers under Florida law, Section 768.44(1)(a) does not expressly include dentists among the practitioners whose malpractice claims must be submitted to a medical liability mediation panel, and the court will not assume such omission was legislative oversight or rewrite the statute to include them.
[1] Medical liability mediation procedures set forth in Section 768.44, Florida Statutes, are not applicable to alleged malpractice claims against dentists.
[2] The omission of dentists in the statutory list of providers subject to medical liability mediation cannot be presumed to be a legislative oversight.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Section 768.44 does not provide that alleged malpractice claims against dentists or health care providers must be submitted to a medical liability mediation panel as a prerequisite to filing the action in court.”
Establishes that the statute's plain language does not include dentists in its mediation requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants brought malpractice claims against a dentist, Mark L. Bramlett. The trial court entered summary final judgment finding the claims barred by…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Tolling Of Statute Of Limitations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The issue before this court is whether the medical liability mediation procedures set forth in Section 768.44 (1977), Florida Statutes, are applicable to alleged malpractice claims against dentists. We hold they are not and affirm the summary final judgment entered by the trial court finding that the statute of limitations set out in Section 95.11(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1975), barred the claims of appellants.
Section 768.44(l)(a) provides:
Any person or his representative claiming damages by reason of injury, death, or monetary loss on account of alleged malpractice by any medical or osteopathic physician, podiatrist, hospital, or health maintenance organization against whom he believes there is a reasonable basis for a claim shall submit such claim to an appropriate medical liability mediation panel before that claim may be filed in any court of this state.
Section 768.44(4) further provides that:
(4) The filing of the claim shall toll any applicable statute of limitations, and such statute of limitations shall remain tolled until the hearing panel issues its written decisions or the jurisdiction of the panel is otherwise terminated.
Although dentists are included within the definition of “health care providers,” Section 768.50(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1977), Section 768.44 does not provide that alleged malpractice claims against dentists or health care providers must be submitted to a medical liability mediation panel as a prerequisite to filing the action in court. We cannot assume that the omission of dentists in Section 768.44(l)(a) was a legislative oversight nor can we rewrite the statute. Had the Legislature intended that the medical liability mediation procedures set forth in Section 768.44 be applicable to dentists, they could have so provided. Since we find that the medical liability mediation procedures are not applicable to dentists, the provision of Section 768.44(4), tolling the statute of limitations during pendency of the claim, offers no relief to appellants. The summary final judgment finding that appellants’ claim was barred by Section 95.-ll(4)(b) is accordingly AFFIRMED.
McCORD, C. J., and MELVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur. ,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tobin v. Dannheisser, 372 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…ommenced because a claim was submitted pursuant to the medical liability mediation procedures set forth in Section 768.44, Florida Statutes (1977) within two years of the allegedly negligent treatment by appellee is without merit. Young v. Bramlett, 369 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). However, we agree with'appellant’s contention that a genuine issue of material fact existed which precluded entry of summary judgment with respect to when appellant discovered or, with the exercise of due diligence, should have…
-
Shields v. William A. Buchholz, D.D.S., 515 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…in contract for damages because of the death, injury, or monetary loss to any person arising out of any medical, dental, or surgical diagnosis, treatment, or care by any provider of health care. [Emphasis added.] Appellants cite Young v. Bramlett, 369 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert, denied, 379 So. 2d 211 (Fla.1980). In Young, the district court concluded: Although dentists are included within the definition of “health care providers,” Section 768.50(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1977), Section 768.44 doe…
-
Lasky v. Hastings, 373 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…PER CURIAM. Reversed on the authority of Young v. Bramlett, 369 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), holding that the medical liability mediation procedures set forth in Section 768.-44, Florida Statutes (1977), are not applicable to alleged malpractice claims against dentists. We note that at the time the trial court entered i…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence