BETTY CARLTON AND WILLIAM J. CARLTON, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
RAY RIDINGS, M.D., 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 Carltons appealed summary judgment dismissing their medical malpractice claim against Dr. Ridings. The court held that their claim was barred by Florida's statute of limitations for medical malpractice, which requires suit to be filed within four years of injury regardless of when the injury was discovered.
The claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The fraud/concealment exception in Section 95.11(4)(b) applies only when the injury is not discovered within the initial four-year period. Since the Carltons discovered the alleged injury before July 10, 1979 (within four years of the injury), they were required to file suit by that date, and their failure to do so bars their claim.
[1] A medical malpractice claim must be filed within two years of the date of injury or discovery, but no later than four years after the injury.
[2] The two-year extension for fraud, concealment, or intentional misrepresentation preventing discovery of a medical malpractice injury applies only when the injury is not d…
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“The first sentence of Section 95.11(4)(b) provides that such claims must be filed within two years of the date of injury or discovery of the injury, but in any event not later than four years after the injury.”
Establishes the primary statute of limitations rule for medical malpractice claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. Ridings allegedly negligently administered radiation therapy to Mrs. Carlton on July 10, 1975. The Carltons claim they did not discover this alleg…
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 Fla. Stat. § 95.11(4)(B) Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Betty and William H. Carlton, plaintiffs below, appeal the entry of summary judgment for Ridings on the ground that their claim for medical malpractice is barred by Section 95.11(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1981). We affirm.
On 25 April 1980, the Carltons filed their original complaint in this action, alleging that Dr. Ridings negligently administered radiation therapy to Mrs. Carlton on 10 July 1975, and further alleging that they did not become aware of this alleged malpractice until 18 September 1978 due to fraud, concealment, and intentional misrepresentation of fact by Dr. Ridings.
Section 95.11(4)(b) sets out two periods of limitation which are applicable to medical malpractice claims. The first sentence of Section 95.11(4)(b) provides that such claims must be filed within two years of the date of injury or discovery of the injury, but in any event not later than four years after the injury. The Carltons’ claim is clearly barred under this first sentence because it was not filed within four years of the injury-
The last sentence of Section 95.11(4)(b) applies in those cases where it can be shown that fraud, concealment, or intentional misrepresentation of fact prevented discovery of the injury within the four-year period. In those cases, the period of limitations is extended forward two years from the time of discovery of the injury, but in any event, not later than seven years from the date of the injury. According to the plain language of the statute, however, this last sentence is applicable only in cases where the injury is not discovered within four years of the date of injury. In the present case, the injury was discovered within four years, so this last sentence cannot apply.
The Carltons cite several cases for the proposition that the statute of limitations is tolled where fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation prevent discovery of the injury during the limitations period. Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So. 2d 25 (Fla.1976); Nolen v. Sarasohn, 379 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Almengor v. Dade County, 359 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Tetstone v. Adams, 373 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). All of these cases involved earlier versions of Section 95.11(4)(b), none of which contained any special provisions for cases of fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation. Therefore, we will not follow the reasoning of those cases.
Alford v. Summerlin, 362 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), does deal with Section 95.-ll(4)(b) as it is presently enacted. However, that case is distinguishable because it did not involve a suit filed more than four years after the date of the injury; it concerned only whether the statute of limitations should be extended for an additional two years beyond the' usual two-year period.
We hold, therefore, that because the Carl-tons discovered the alleged injury before 10 July 1979 and failed to file suit before that date, their claim for medical malpractice is barred by Section 95.11(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1981).
AFFIRMED.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and McCORD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cobb v. Carlos Maldonado, M.D., 451 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…4th DCA 1979). This court is not free to modify the effect of the statute. We observe that in a case similar to the present one the first district has likewise found the statutory language plain, and come to a similar result. See Carlton v. Ridings, 422 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Florida’s Supreme Court recently held that section 95.11(4)(b) is constitutional. Cates v. Graham, 451 Bo.2d 475 (Fla.1984), affirming 427 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The court reiterated that a statute of repose is constitu…
-
Todd v. Marvin Johnson, M.D., 965 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…er granting motion to dismiss second amended complaint did not cite case authority, but its order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss first amended complaint with leave to amend cited “Nehme v. Smithkline, 863 So. 2d 201[sic], Carlton v. Ridings, 422 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) and Glass v. Camara, 369 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).” All three of these decisions pertained to malpractice committed before chapter 96-167, Laws of Florida, took effect, and must be understood in that light. See Ch. 96-167,…
-
Pisut v. Sichelman, 455 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…seven-year limitations period in the last sentence of section 95.11(4)(b) should apply. By the terms of the statute, this last sentence applies only in cases where the injury is not discovered within four years of its infliction. Carlton v. Ridings, 422 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). There is no dispute that appellants discovered the injury within the four-year period, rendering the seven-year limitations period inapplicable in this case. See Cobb v. Maldonado, 451 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). We affirm…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1976)
- Almengor v. Dade Cnty., 359 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Coy L. Nolen v. Sylvan H. Sarasohn, 379 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Tetstone v. Adams, 373 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Alford v. Summerlin, 362 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)