Case Name: Charles KUKRAL and Milly Kukral, Appellants, v. George D. MEKRAS, M.D.; Miami Urology Institute, Inc. and Dr. John T. McDonald Foundation d/b/a Doctors' Hospital, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-05-17
Citations: 647 So. 2d 849
Docket Number: No. 93-2294
Parties: Charles KUKRAL and Milly Kukral, Appellants, v. George D. MEKRAS, M.D.; Miami Urology Institute, Inc. and Dr. John T. McDonald Foundation d/b/a Doctors’ Hospital, Appellees.
Judges: Before JORGENSON, COPE and GODERICH, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 647
Pages: 849–853

Head Matter:
Charles KUKRAL and Milly Kukral, Appellants, v. George D. MEKRAS, M.D.; Miami Urology Institute, Inc. and Dr. John T. McDonald Foundation d/b/a Doctors’ Hospital, Appellees.
No. 93-2294.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 17, 1994.
Order Adopting Opinion after Grant of En Banc Rehearing Jan. 4, 1995.
Joe N. Unger, Miami, and Richard L. Katz, Coral Gables, for appellants.
George Hartz Lundeen Flagg & Fulmer, Hicks, Anderson & Blum, and Bambi G. Blum, Miami, for appellees Mekras and Miami Urology Institute, Inc.
Parenti, Falk, Waas & Frazier, Gail Lever-ett Parenti, Miami, for appellees Doctors’ Hosp.
Before JORGENSON, COPE and GODERICH, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiffs, Charles and Milly Kukral, appeal from a final order dismissing their complaint for failure to comply with the pre-suit screening requirements. We affirm.
On February 21,1992, the plaintiffs served on Doctor's Hospital and Dr. George D. Mek-ras notices of intent to initiate litigation for medical malpractice. The notices stated that during a medical procedure to remove genital warts undiluted acid was applied to the plaintiffs penis resulting in serious burns. These notices of intent were not accompanied by a verified written medical expert opinion when they were mailed. Miami Urology Institute, Inc. [MUI], Dr. Mekras' employer, alleges that it was not individually served with a notice of intent and that the notice sent to Dr. Mekras did not indicate that MUI was a prospective defendant.
Doctor's Hospital sent a denial of the claim to the plaintiffs accompanied by an affidavit of an expert. On August 14, 1992, the plaintiffs sent out an unverified medical expert opinion corroborating the claim of medical negligence. On September 3, 1992, the plaintiffs sent out a verification of medical expert opinion alleging negligence. Then, on October 9,1992, the plaintiffs filed their complaint against Doctor's Hospital, Dr. Mekras, and MUI [collectively referred to as defendants] for medical malpractice. After the matter had been set for trial, the defendants filed a motion to determine whether the plaintiffs had properly complied with the statutory pre-suit screening procedures. After hearings, the trial court entered the appealed order dismissing the plaintiffs' case for failure to comply with the mandatory pre-suit screening procedures.
The plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in dismissing their lawsuit for failing to provide a verified "medical opinion of negligence with the notice of intent to initiate litigation where the facts giving rise to the injury set forth in the notice are sufficient to establish that the claim is not frivolous, where the defendants conducted their own investigation and denied negligence, and where a verified medical opinion was supplied prior to suit being filed. We disagree.
The plaintiffs sent notices of intent to initiate litigation without including the medical expert opinion as required by section 766.203, Florida Statutes (1991). Moreover, the plaintiffs did not present any evidence indicating that they consulted with any medical expert or that they conducted a good faith and reasonable investigation prior to mailing the notices as the statutes require. It is the plaintiffs failure to comply with their duty to conduct an investigation as defined by section 766.202(4), Florida Statutes (1991), that distinguishes this case from the cases relied on by plaintiffs. In Stebilla v. Mussallem, 595 So.2d 136 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 604 So.2d 487 (Fla.1992) and Ragoonanan v. Assocs. in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 619 So.2d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), and in Suarez v. St. Joseph's Hosp., Inc., 634 So.2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), the plaintiffs obtained the necessary medical opinion before filing their notices.
Under section 766.206, Florida Statutes (1991), since no reasonable investigation was conducted, the plaintiffs' claim was properly dismissed. The order appealed from is hereby affirmed.
COPE and GODERICH, JJ., concur.