ARLINE HERMOSO, ET AL.

v.

NEW LIFE PLASTIC SURGERY CORP., ET AL.

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed July 16, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-0856 Lower Tribunal No. 20-24612-CA-01 ________________

Arline Hermoso, et al., Appellants,

vs.

New Life Plastic Surgery Corp., et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice Butchko Sanchez, Judge.

Hodson Law Firm, P.A., and Donald J. Hodson; Dream Team Law, PLLC and Yelina Angulo, for appellants.

Lagos Law, Christos Lagos and Laura P. Denault, for appellee New Life Plastic Surgery Corp.; Shannin Law Firm, P.A. and Carol B. Shannin, (Orlando), for appellee Camille Chavez, M.D.

Before SCALES, C.J., and GORDO and GOODEN, JJ.

GORDO, J.

2 Arline Hermoso (“Hermoso”) and her husband, Ivan Manzano (“Manzano”), appeal a final order dismissing their second amended complaint with prejudice entered in favor of Dr. Camille Chavez (“Dr. Chavez”) and New Life Plastic Surgery Corporation (“New Life”). We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). We affirm.

I.

In November 2018, Dr. Chavez performed a breast lift and implant replacement surgery on Hermoso at New Life. Following the procedure, Hermoso served a notice of intent to initiate medical negligence litigation against Dr. Chavez and New Life pursuant to section 766.203, Florida Statutes. In her notice, Hermoso alleged (1) Dr. Chavez negligently placed her breast implants above the muscle rather than beneath it; and (2) she failed to provide adequate post-operative care for any vascular compromise resulting from the implant misplacement. Hermoso included an affidavit from her expert, Dr. Paul Glat (“Dr. Glat”), who opined that reasonable grounds exist to support a medical negligence claim, as a plastic surgeon exercising reasonable care under similar circumstances would have (1) placed the implants beneath the muscle; and (2) provided appropriate care to address any vascular compromise resulting from such misplacement.

5

II.

“A trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss is subject to de novo review.” Skupin v. Hemisphere Media Grp., Inc., 314 So. 3d 353, 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (quoting Kopel v. Kopel, 229 So. 3d 812, 815 (Fla. 2017)). “The ultimate question of whether a claimant has satisfied the threshold requirements of the presuit notice investigation, warranting denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss, presents an issue of law.” Howell v. Balchunas, 284 So. 3d 1180, 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). “[T]he trial court’s ruling that the appellants’ corroborating affidavit failed to comply with the statutory requirements is reviewed de novo.” Oliveros v. Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt, Inc., 45 So. 3d 873, 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

III.

On appeal, Hermoso argues the trial court erred in dismissing her second amended complaint with prejudice because her notice of intent to litigate satisfied the statutory requirement of a reasonable pre-suit investigation.¹ The Medical Malpractice Act requires that “[p]rior to issuing notification of intent to initiate medical negligence litigation . . . the claimant shall conduct

1 We affirm the other issues raised without further discussion.

2 It shocks the conscience that a medical expert, under oath and penalty of perjury, would assure the court there was justification for the plaintiff’s claim that the surgeon improperly placed the implants above the muscle when both the plaintiff and Dr. Altman testified the implants were in fact placed below the muscle.