STUART P. SEIDER, AN INDIVIDUAL, JEFFREY A. STEVENS, AN INDIVIDUAL AND SEIDER AND STEVENS, P.A.
v.
JARRED LEIBNER, AN INDIVIDUAL
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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of certiorari, holding that a complaint alleging dental malpractice must comply with the presuit requirements of Florida Statute section 766.106, and quashed the trial court's order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss.
A complaint alleging medical malpractice by dentists must comply with the presuit notification requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes, regardless of how the plaintiff characterizes the claims.
[1] A complaint alleging unnecessary dental procedures and misrepresentation regarding dental implant treatment must comply with the presuit notification requirements of sect…
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 intelligenceTwo dentists and their professional association were sued by a patient who alleged they performed unnecessary procedures and misrepresented the status…
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 Professional Standard Of Care cases and more on FLexlaw
Jarred Leibner, Miami, pro se.
PER CURIAM.
Two dentists and their professional association seek review of a trial court order that denied their motion to dismiss. They argue the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint because the plaintiff failed to comply with the presuit requirements for bringing a medical malpractice action under section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2017). We agree, grant the petition, and quash the order.
We have jurisdiction because the trial court failed to afford the procedural protections of the medical malpractice statute. See Williams v. Oken, 62 So. 3d 1129, 1134-35 (Fla. 2011).
The plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint alleges that the dentists performed unnecessary procedures and misrepresented the status of the plaintiff’s failing dental implant. Each count adopts paragraphs 1 through 90, which contain medical malpractice allegations. As argued by the dentists, several counts seek damages arising from medical treatment that implicate the professional standard of care. The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in concluding the plaintiff’s claims concern only billing and collection practices—such that the presuit requirements of Chapter 766 do not apply. As pleaded, the Second Amended Complaint sounds in medical malpractice.
For these reasons, we grant the petition, quash the order denying the motion to dismiss, and remand the case to the trial court to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice. The plaintiff may either amend the complaint to eliminate the medical malpractice allegations or comply with the presuit requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2017). 1
Petition granted.
MAY, CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
1We express no opinion on whether a medical malpractice claim is barred by the statute of limitations.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ovalles v. United States, 905 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2018)
-
Hylor v. United States, 896 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Keith Robinson Oken, M.D., 62 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 2011)