MOUNT SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, APPELLANT,
v.
COSTEL FOTEA, 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.
Mount Sinai Medical Center sought certiorari to reverse the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with statutory presuit requirements under Florida's medical malpractice statute. The appellate court held that the plaintiff's claims arose out of the rendering of medical services and therefore triggered the presuit notice requirement, warranting dismissal.
The court held that Fotea's claims clearly arose out of the rendering of medical services and therefore were subject to the statutory presuit requirements of Chapter 766. Mount Sinai's motion to dismiss should have been granted because Fotea failed to comply with the presuit notice requirement.
[1] A claim arises out of the rendering of medical services when it stems from actions taken as part of providing medical care or services.
[2] Chapter 766, Florida Statutes, requires notice to prospective defendants prior to initiating litigation for claims arising out of the rendering of, or failure to render,…
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 766.106(1), Florida Statutes,' defines "medical negligence" and "medical malpractice" as a claim "arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services."”
Establishes the statutory definition that triggers presuit requirements under Chapter 766
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFotea presented to Mount Sinai for a CT scan prescribed by his chiropractor. While there, hospital laboratory staff obtained blood and urine samples f…
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 Baker Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mount Sinai Medical Center (“Mount Sinai”) petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari, claiming error in the trial court’s orders (1) denying Mt. Sinai’s Motion to Dismiss Costel Fotea’s (“Fotea”) Complaint for failure to comply with the statutory presuit requirements of Chapter 766, Florida Statutes; and (2) striking Mount Sinai’s Answer which asserts affirmative defenses for failure to comply with the presuit requirements. We grant the petition as it relates to the trial court’s denial of Mount Sinai’s Motion to Dismiss because the allegations in the Complaint satisfy the “medical services” provision of Chapter 766.
Fotea filed suit against Mount Sinai claiming he was improperly committed pursuant to the Baker Act1 following a laboratory error at Mount Sinai. The Complaint alleges that while Fotea was at Mt. Sinai awaiting a CT scan prescribed by his chiropractor, he was approached by a lab tech for blood and urine samples. Fotea alleges that because the lab results indicated high levels of alcohol and illegal drugs, Mount Sinai Baker Acted Fotea.
Section 766.106, Florida Statutes, requires that a plaintiff, claiming medical negligence or medical malpractice, give notice to prospective defendants of the intent to initiate litigation prior to filing suit. § 766.106(2), Fla. Stat. (2003). This notice requirement then triggers preliminary discovery and investigation. § 766.106(3), Fla. Stat. (2003). Section 766.106(1), Florida Statutes,' defines “medical negligence” and “medical malpractice” as a claim “arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services.” § 766.106(1), Fla. Stat. (2003); see also Puentes v. Tenet Hialeah Healthsystem, 843 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).
In the instant case, Fotea presented himself to the hospital for medical services, i.e., a CT scan. As part of that service, the hospital took lab work from Fotea. The lab results prompted the alleged improper, involuntary commitment of Fotea. Thus, Fotea’s claims clearly arise out of the rendering of medical services.
Accordingly, Mount Sinai’s Petition for Certiorari is granted, and the matter is remanded with directions to grant Mount Sinai’s Motion to Dismiss Fotea’s Second Amended Complaint for failure to comply with the presuit requirements of Chapter 766.
Petition for Certiorari granted.
. § 394.451, Fla. Stat. (2003).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gutman v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Labs., Inc., 707 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (S.D. Fla. 2010)…of the rendering of medical services. Courts have consistently held that similar claims arising from lab tests and blood-related procedures are subject to the pre-suit requirements under Fla. Stat. § 766.106. See Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Fotea, 937 So.2d 146, 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding that claim for improper commitment under the Baker Act resulting from erroneous blood and urine tests “clearly ar[ose] out of the rendering of medical services” and was subject to Fla. Stat. § 766.106); Lifesouth…
Authorities Cited
- Puentes v. Tenet Hialeah Healthsystem, 843 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)