Case Title: Hillsborough Community Mental Health Ctr. v. Harr

Citation: 618 So. 2d 187

Docket Number: 79266, 79267

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1993-05-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
618 So. 2d 187 (1993)
HILLSBOROUGH COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, etc., Petitioner,
v.
Marjorie J. HARR, etc., et al., Respondents.
Sayyed HUSSAIN, M.D., Petitioner,
v.
Marjorie J. HARR, etc., et al., Respondents.
Nos. 79266, 79267.

Supreme Court of Florida.
May 20, 1993.
Edwin J. Bradley of Miller and Olsen, on behalf of Hillsborough Community Health Center, Inc., and Clifford L. Somers of Somers & Associates, Tampa, on behalf of Sayyed Hussain, M.D., for petitioners.
Joel D. Eaton of Podhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow, Olin & Perwin, P.A., Miami, and Mitzel & Mitzel, P.A., Tampa, for respondents.
Kelley B. Gelb of Krupnick, Campbell, Malone & Roselli, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, amicus curiae for Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers.
*188 GRIMES, Justice.
We review Harr v. Hillsborough Community Mental Health Center, 591 So. 2d 1051, 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), in which the court certified the following question as a matter of great public importance:
We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.
For purposes of our review, the pertinent facts are essentially undisputed and were adequately set forth in the opinion below:
Harr, 591 So. 2d  at 1052-53.
Mrs. Harr served a notice of intent to commence litigation against the Mental Health Center and Dr. Hussain on October 20, 1988, and thereafter filed a malpractice action against them. The trial court held that Mrs. Harr's suit was barred by the two-year statute of limitations on suits against health-care providers. Section 95.11(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (1985). The district court of appeal reversed, reasoning as follows:
Harr, 591 So. 2d  at 1054.
In Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1976), this Court held that a malpractice suit commences "either when the plaintiff has notice of the negligent act giving rise to the cause of action or when the plaintiff has notice of the physical injury which is the consequence of the negligent act." Id. at 32. We reaffirmed this holding in Barron v. Shapiro, 565 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 1990), and in University of Miami v. Bogorff, 583 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1991). Therefore, we can understand the concern of the court below with respect to whether it had properly applied the principle of those cases to the facts before it.
In the meantime, however, this Court reinterpreted the Nardone rule to hold that the statute of limitations in a medical malpractice suit commences either when the plaintiff has notice of the negligent act giving rise to the cause of action or when the plaintiff has knowledge of the injury and knowledge of the reasonable possibility that the injury was caused by medical malpractice. Tanner v. Hartog, 618 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 1993). Under this interpretation, there can be no question that the court below made the right decision. In view of our opinion in Tanner, we find it unnecessary to answer the certified questions as worded.
We approve the decision of the district court of appeal.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.