Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellants, Janet and Wayne Creel, challenged a summary judgment which dismissed their medical malpractice claim against Dr. Flora J. Danisi on the grounds of being time-barred by the statute of limitations. The dispute centered around whether a letter sent by the Creels' former attorney in September 2001 constituted a valid notice of intent to bring a malpractice claim, which would toll the statute of limitations according to Florida Statutes Chapter 766. The court conducted a de novo review and determined that the letter was indeed a valid notice of intent, thereby extending the statute of limitations by 90 days. This extension allowed the Creels until August 20, 2002, to file their complaint. However, the complaint was filed on October 14, 2002, beyond the allowable period. The court rejected the Creels' argument that the statute could be tolled a second time and found no genuine issue of material fact, affirming the trial court's decision that Dr. Danisi was entitled to judgment as a matter of law due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
Legal Issues Addressed
Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the statute of limitations for medical malpractice began on the date of surgery, and the Creels' complaint was filed beyond this period.
Reasoning: Janet and Wayne Creel appealed a summary judgment ruling that their medical malpractice complaint against Dr. Flora J. Danisi was barred by the statute of limitations.
Notice of Intent under Florida Statutes Chapter 766subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that a letter sent by the Creels' former attorney constituted a valid notice of intent to initiate a malpractice claim, tolling the statute of limitations.
Reasoning: The court reviewed the issue de novo and determined that the September 2001 letter indeed served as a notice of intent, as it explicitly stated the intention to pursue a malpractice claim.
Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendantsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the lower court's summary judgment in favor of Dr. Danisi, as there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the expiration of the statute of limitations.
Reasoning: The court found no genuine issue of material fact, affirming that Dr. Danisi was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and upheld the summary judgment.
Tolling of Statute of Limitationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The letter served to toll the statute of limitations for 90 days, allowing additional time for filing the claim, but the Creels failed to file within the extended period.
Reasoning: According to Section 766.106(4) of Florida Statutes, a notice of intent tolls the statute of limitations for 90 days, during which the claimant may file suit without the time counting against the limitations period.