Case Name: John INGERSOLL and Kay Ingersoll, Appellants, v. Warren HOFFMAN, D.D.S., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1990-04-10
Citations: 561 So. 2d 324
Docket Number: No. 89-997
Parties: John INGERSOLL and Kay Ingersoll, Appellants, v. Warren HOFFMAN, D.D.S., Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 561
Pages: 324–327

Head Matter:
John INGERSOLL and Kay Ingersoll, Appellants, v. Warren HOFFMAN, D.D.S., Appellee.
No. 89-997.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
April 10, 1990.
Rehearing Denied June 13, 1990.
Kenneth P. Liroff, Ft. Lauderdale, Brian Hersh, Klein, Beranek & Walsh and Lawrence Klein, West Palm Beach, for appellants.
Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder & Carson and G. Bart Billbrough and Geoffrey B. Marks, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, John and Kay Ingersoll, seek review of a March 23, 1989, order dismissing their professional negligence action against defendant Dr. Warren Hoffman. The order of dismissal is predicated on plaintiffs' failure to comply with Section 768.57(2) Florida Statutes (1987), to provide "notice of intent to initiate litigation for medical malpractice." We find no error and affirm.
On September 10, 1987, pursuant to Section 768.57 Florida Statutes, Attorney Kenneth Liroff erroneously notified Howard Hoffman, D.D.S., defendant Warren Hoffman's brother, of the initiation of a professional negligence claim. Appellants admit this mistake. However appellants contend that, although the notice of intent was addressed to the wrong Hoffman brother, both brothers at the time were practicing dentistry at the same dental clinic and, in addition, the Hoffmans' insurance carrier acknowledged that it had been notified of the intention to initiate litigation against Howard Hoffman. It is therefore appellants' argument that adequate notice was given under Section 768.57 to defendant Warren Hoffman. We disagree.
Section 768.57(2) Florida Statutes (1987) is specific. "Prior to filing a claim for medical malpractice, a claimant shall notify each prospective defendant by certified mail, return receipt requested, of intent to initiate litigation for medical malpractice." (Emphasis added.) The statute does not allow for constructive notice, nor does it allow for oral notice, notice by publication, or notice by regular mail. See Glineck v. Lentz, 524 So.2d 458 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), review denied, 534 So.2d 399 (Fla.1988); Pearlstein v. Malunney, 500 So.2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), review denied, 511 So.2d 299 (Fla.1987) and Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Knuck, 495 So.2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Because this court has held that the notice requirement of Section 768.57 is jurisdictional, failure to provide adequate notice shall result in dismissal. Bendeck v. Berry, 546 So.2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Berry v. Orr, 537 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) review denied, 545 So.2d 1368 (Fla.1989). It is also noted that no certificate, in accordance with the provisions of Section 768.495(1), Florida Statutes (1987), was ever supplied as to Dr. Warren Hoffman, therefore, the final order of dismissal is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
BARKDULL and JORGENSON, JJ., concur.
. However, as we have heretofore done in Bendeck v. Berry, 546 So.2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), we certify to the Florida Supreme Court as of great public importance the following question:
DOES THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PRELITIGATION NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 768.57 DEPRIVE THE TRIAL COURT OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF A DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, OR MAY THE LACK OF SUCH NOTICE BE EXCUSED BY A SHOWING OF ES-TOPPEL OR WAIVER?