RITA WINSON, APPELLANT,
v.
HAROLD G. NORMAN, M.D. AND CORAL GABLES PLASTIC SURGERY ASSOCIATES-HAROLD G. NORMAN, JR., M.D., P.A., APPELLEES
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.
Trial court properly dismissed medical malpractice action against physician where the plaintiff's expert failed to satisfy pre-suit screening requirements because he was not duly and regularly engaged in medical practice, having been inactive for over a decade and functioning solely as a litigation expert.
An expert who has not been engaged in actual medical practice for more than a decade and confines recent professional activities to serving as a litigation expert does not satisfy the 'duly and regularly engaged in the practice of his profession' requirement of Florida's pre-suit screening statute.
[1] An expert witness does not satisfy Florida's pre-suit medical malpractice screening requirement of being 'duly and regularly engaged in the practice of his profession' wh…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff brought a breast implant medical malpractice action against her physician and his surgical practice. The plaintiff submitted a verified writ…
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 Expert Witness Qualification cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
In this “breast implant” action brought against, among others, the appellant’s physician, we hold that the trial court correctly determined that the alleged expert who executed the verified written opinion in attempted compliance with the pre-suit screening requirements of sections 766.202(5), 766.203(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1993) was not “duly and regularly engaged in the practice of his profession,” as defined by section 766.202(5).
The doctor in question had not been engaged in the actual practice for more than a decade prior and had apparently confined his recent professional activities to acting as a “litigation expert” — on behalf of plaintiffs — in cases such as this one. Since one of the primary thrusts of Florida’s statutory medical malpractice scheme is to “weed out” cases which are not, even prima facie, supported by some reliable independent indication of their merits, see, e.g., Ingersoll v. Hoffman, 589 So. 2d 223 (Fla.1991); Ragoonanan v. Associates in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 619 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), it is clear that the affidavit in question was properly stricken and, since the statute of limitations has run, that the action as against the physician was properly dismissed. Cf. Suarez n St. Joseph’s Hosp., Inc., 634 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ingersoll v. Warren Hoffman, D.D.S., 589 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1991)
- Ragoonanan v. Assocs. IN Obstetrics & Gynecology, 619 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Julieta Suarez v. ST. Joseph's Hosp., Inc., 634 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)