Case Name: Donna L. GLINECK, Appellant, v. Carl W. LENTZ, III, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-03-31
Citations: 524 So. 2d 458
Docket Number: No. 87-838
Parties: Donna L. GLINECK, Appellant, v. Carl W. LENTZ, III, et al., Appellees.
Judges: DAUKSCH, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 524
Pages: 458–460

Head Matter:
Donna L. GLINECK, Appellant, v. Carl W. LENTZ, III, et al., Appellees.
No. 87-838.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
March 31, 1988.
Rehearing Denied May 4, 1988.
Benjamin Yancy Saxon, II, and Edward J. Richardson of Saxon & Richardson, P.A., Melbourne, and M. Brice Corder, Melbourne, for appellant.
James W. Smith and Robert K. Rouse, Jr., of Smith, Schoder & Rouse, P.A., Day-tona Beach, for appellees.

Opinion:
COWART, Judge.
An allegation that the plaintiff-patient gave the defendant-doctor actual oral notice of intent to initiate litigation for medical malpractice fails to allege compliance with section 768.57(2), Florida Statutes (1985), which requires such notice of intent be in writing and served by certified mail, return receipt requested.
If notice of an intended medical malpractice action is necessary, and the legislature has directed it, then there is good reason that the form of such notice be such as to eliminate or reduce contention and litigation concerning compliance with such notice requirement. We decline to disregard the clear legislative direction contained in the statute and decline to hold that actual notice is sufficient compliance with the statute.
The order dismissing the complaint is
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs.
ORFINGER, J., dissents with opinion.