JAMES FRANKLIN, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 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.
James Franklin was injured by an explosion at a hospital and sued the Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services under Florida's sovereign immunity statute. The trial court dismissed his complaint for failure to comply with notice requirements, but the appellate court reversed, holding that Franklin had satisfied the statutory notice provisions when notice was sent to the Department of Insurance within the required timeframe and the department denied the claim.
Franklin complied with the notice provisions because written notice of the claim was presented to the Department of Insurance within three years of the injury and the Department of Insurance denied the claim in writing. The court held that the statute does not specify a particular form or manner of submission, only that notice be in writing and sufficiently describe the occurrence to permit investigation.
[1] Notice provisions of the sovereign immunity statute must be strictly construed.
[2] Notice requirements of the sovereign immunity statute can be waived.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“any manner of submitting a written notice of the claim to the agency involved that sufficiently describes or identifies the occurrence so that the agency may investigate it, satisfies the statute”
Establishes that the sovereign immunity statute does not require a specific form of notice, only that it be written and adequately descriptive for investigation purposes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFranklin was injured by an explosion while delivering a tank of isopropyl alcohol to Sunland Center Hospital. The hospital sent notice of the claim to…
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 Written Notice Of Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
UPCHURCH, Chief Judge.
Appellant, James Franklin, was injured by an explosion while delivering a tank of isopropyl alcohol to Sunland Center Hospital. The amended complaint alleged that Franklin had complied with notice provisions of the sovereign immunity statute1 or, in the alternative, the provisions were waived when Sunland Center Hospital sent notice of the claim to its insurance company and the state Division of Risk Management.
In its motion to dismiss, appellee, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, contended that the notice was invalid since it was not sent to the appropriate agency and that section 768.28(6)(a) must be strictly construed. The Florida Supreme Court has held that these notice provisions must be strictly construed. Levine v. Dade County School Bd., 442 So. 2d 210 (Fla.1983).
Several decisions have held that the notice requirements of section 768.28(6)(a) can be waived. In Re Forfeiture One 1978 Datsun Pickup Truck, 475 So. 2d 1007 (Fla.2d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 436 So. 2d 598 (Fla.1986); City of Pembroke Pines v. Atlas, 474 So. 2d 237 (Fla.4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 486 So. 2d 595 (Fla.1986); Hutchins v. Mills, 363 So. 2d 818 (Fla.lst DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1368 (1979).
The court in Levine upheld the dismissal of a complaint with prejudice because no notice of a claim was given to the Department of Insurance -within ••three years of the accrual'of the cause of action.
In Levine, no notice of the claim was sent to the Department of Insurance, whereas in this case the notice of the claim was sent to the Department of Insurance within three years, but not by the plaintiff. In Whitney v. Marion County Hospital District, 416 So. 2d 500 (Fla.5th DCA 1982), this court held that “any manner of submitting a written notice” of claim to the appropriate agency satisfies the notice requirement:
The summary final judgment also relies on appellant’s alleged failure to comply with the notice requirements of section 768.28(6), Florida Statutes (1977). The statute requires written notice to the agency and to the Department of Insurance. Suit may be instituted when the appropriate agency or the Department of Insurance denies the claim in writing.
The record before the trial court shows that a written demand for medical mediation was served upon the Hospital and contained a detailed statement of the nature of the claim, how and when it allegedly occurred and the damage claimed to flow from it_ Since section 768.28(6) does not specify the form or manner of submitting the claim, except that it be in writing, it follows that any manner of submitting a written notice of the claim to the agency involved that sufficiently describes or identifies the occurrence so that the agency may investigate it, satisfies the statute. Similarly, the written denial of the claim in the mediation proceeding satisfies that requirement of the statute, since the statute mandates no particular form for denial except that it be in writing.
The record reflects that the Department of Insurance was notified of the claim and has disclaimed any interest in the matter. (Footnotes omitted; emphasis in the original.)
416 So. 2d at 502.
In this case, since the record indicates that the Department of Insurance was notified of the claim within three years of plaintiff’s injury and that the department denied liability; therefore, the plaintiff complied with the notice provisions. Accordingly, the decision below is
REVERSED.
ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur. . The relevant part of section 768.28(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1985) provides: An action may not be instituted on a claim against the state or one of its agencies or subdivisions unless the claimant presents the claim in writing to the appropriate agency, and also, except as to any claim against a municipality, presents such claim in writing to the Department of Insurance, within 3 years after such claim accrues and the Department of Insurance or the appropriate agency denies the claim in writing....
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Orange Cnty. v. Piper, 523 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…rinciple that a technical defect in a notice can be waived when the notice is sufficient to provide authorities with an opportunity to investigate shortly after the occurrence, apparently has been impliedly overruled by Levine. Cf. Franklin v. DHRS, 493 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (compliance with notice requirement satisfied even though notice of claim to Department of Insurance was not given by accident victim but by defendant). Florida case law recognizes that loss of consortium is a separate cause of…
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Northern Coats and Sadie Bell Coats, 559 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…r form for furnishing notice. As long as the notice describes the occurrence with sufficient detail to enable the Department of Insurance to investigate, it fulfills the statutory requirement. Franklin v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Serv., 493 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Whitney v. Marion County Hosp. Dist., 416 So. 2d [*73] 500 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982);1 cf. Pearlstein v. Malunney, 500 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), review denied, 511 So. 2d 299 (Fla.1987). Here, the record demonstrates that Norther…
-
City OF Miami v. Cisneros, 662 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…ffectively described the occurrence giving rise to the distinct cause of action, and thus, as the trial court concluded, acted as sufficient written notice for maintaining the added claim. See Franklin v. Department of Health & Rehab. [*1275] Serv., 493 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); see L.S.T., Inc. v. Crow, 834 F.Supp. 1355 (M.D.Fla.1993), reversed on other grounds, 49 F. 3d 679 (11th Cir.1995). Next, the trial court properly concluded that the defense of express assump-⅜ tion of risk was not a bar to thi…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Levine v. Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 442 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1983)
- Hutchins v. Mills, 363 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- City OF Pembroke Pines v. Atlas, 474 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Whitney v. Marion Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 416 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- In re Forfeiture OF the following described Prop.: 1978 Green Datsun Pickup Truck v. Kruysman, 475 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)