Case Name: Loretta COBB, Appellant, v. Carlos MALDONADO, M.D., and James Harrell, M.D., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-01-25
Citations: 451 So. 2d 482
Docket Number: No. 83-1062
Parties: Loretta COBB, Appellant, v. Carlos MALDONADO, M.D., and James Harrell, M.D., Appellees.
Judges: ANSTEAD, C.J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 451
Pages: 482–484

Head Matter:
Loretta COBB, Appellant, v. Carlos MALDONADO, M.D., and James Harrell, M.D., Appellees.
No. 83-1062.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jan. 25, 1984.
Rehearing Denied June 27, 1984.
John R. Young of Hamilton, James, Mer-kle & Young, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jill A. Van Derven of Law Offices of Robert T. Bergin, Jr., West Palm Beach, for appellee, Carlos Maldonado, M.D.

Opinion:
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
This appeal is from a Summary Final Judgment awarded to a doctor in a medical malpractice action. Appellee's alleged malpractice took place in October, 1976 and the injury was discovered in August, 1980, within four years. Section 95.11(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1975) provides in part:
An action for medical malpractice shall be commenced within 2 years from the time the incident giving rise to the action occurred or within 2 years from the time the incident is discovered, or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence; however, in no event shall the action be commenced later than 4 years from the date of the incident or occurrence out of which the cause of action accrued.... In those actions covered by this paragraph in which it can be shown that fraud, concealment, or intentional misrepresentation of fact prevented the discovery of the injury within the j-year period, the period of limitations is extended forward 2 years from the time that the injury is discovered or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence, but in no event to exceed 7 years from the, date the incident giving rise to the injury occurred. (Emphasis added).
The trial judge properly observed:
It is clear that the four-year statute of limitations has run unless the statute is tolled because of the fraud, concealment or intentional misrepresentation of fact prevented the discovery of the injury within the four-year period.
In this case, the discovery having been made within the four-year period, appellant failed to overcome the hurdle we have emphasized in the foregoing statute which plainly contemplates successful fraud, concealment or intentional misrepresentation; i.e., prevention of discovery of the injury within the four-year period. Accordingly, we affirm.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and WALDEN, J., concur.