LOUIS MOSS, APPELLANT,
v.
CARMI STADLAN, 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.
Notice of intent to initiate litigation sent to an employer constitutes notice to an employee who bears a legal relationship with the employer.
[1] Notice of intent to initiate medical malpractice litigation sent to a prospective defendant operates as notice to any other prospective defendant who bears a legal relati…
[2] An employer and its employee physician bear a legal relationship for purposes of medical malpractice presuit notice requirements.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 provided notice of intent to initiate a medical malpractice claim only to Dr. Lester and his employer, Cardiac Surgery Associates, but not t…
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 Medical Malpractice Pre-Suit Notice Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Dr. Stadlan and Dr. Lester, who were both employed by Cardiac Surgery Associates, performed coronary bypass surgery on appellant plaintiff. Plaintiff gave the required notice of intent of initiating a medical malpractice claim only to Dr. Lester and Cardiac Surgery Associates. When he filed this lawsuit, plaintiff sued Dr. Stadlan as well, and the trial court dismissed as to Dr. Stadlan because of the lack of presuit notice. We reverse.
Section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes requires a medical malpractice claimant to notify defendants of claimant’s intent to initiate litigation. In 1988, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.650 was adopted to implement the procedure outlined in the statutory scheme. In re Medical Malpractice Presuit Screening Rules Civil Rules of Procedure, 536 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1988). Rule 1.650(b) provides in part:
(1) Notice of intent to initiate litigation sent by certified mail to and received by any prospective defendant shall operate as notice to the person and any other prospective defendant who bears a legal relationship to the prospective defendant receiving the notice.
The complaint in this case alleges that Dr. Stadlan was an employee or agent of Cardiac Surgery Associates. Plaintiff argues that Dr. Stadlan accordingly has a legal relationship with Cardiac Surgery Associates as contemplated by rule 1.650(b)(1), and notice to the employer constituted notice to Dr. Stadlan.
In Kukral v. Mekras, 679 So. 2d 278 (Fla.1996) the reverse situation was presented, in which the plaintiff gave notice to the negligent physician, but not to the employer of the negligent physician. The Florida Supreme Court held that the employer was in a legal relationship with the physician and accordingly notice to the physician operated as notice to the employer under rule 1.650. It follows from Kukral that the employer and Dr. Stadlan were in a legal relationship, and notice to the employer constituted notice to Dr. Stadlan. We therefore reverse the order dismissing the complaint as to Dr. Stadlan.
GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goldfarb v. Urciuoli, 858 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…perate as notice to the defendant. The Plaintiff argues that the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of the law because the court’s decision was in accord with Kukral v. Mekras, 679 So. 2d 278 (Fla.1996), and Moss v. Stadlan, 789 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). These cases are distinguishable from the instant case because they do not address notice to a former employee. Therefore, we grant the Petitioner/Defendant’s writ of certiorari, quash the trial court’s order, and remand with di…
-
Asif Mirza, M.D. v. Trombley, 946 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…ed that plaintiffs’ presuit notice and investigatory affidavit were sufficient. As for the notice, the law is clear that because Dr. Mirza was a partner and owner of ECHIS, notice to ECHIS also constituted notice to Dr. Mirza. E.g., Moss v. Stadlan, 789 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.650 (“Notice of intent to initiate litigation sent by certified mail to and received by any prospective defendant shall operate as notice to the person and any other prospective defendant who bears a l…
Authorities Cited
- Kukral v. George D. Mekras, M.D., 679 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1996)
- In re Medical Malpractice Presuit Screening Rule-Civil Rules of Procedure, 531 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 1988)