Case Name: Debra C. MYKLEJORD and Dean W. Myklejord, Appellants, v. Stephen F. MORRIS, M.D., et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2000-08-31
Citations: 766 So. 2d 1160
Docket Number: No. 5D99-3615
Parties: Debra C. MYKLEJORD and Dean W. Myklejord, Appellants, v. Stephen F. MORRIS, M.D., et al., Appellees.
Judges: SAWAYA, J., concurs in result only.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 766
Pages: 1160–1163

Head Matter:
Debra C. MYKLEJORD and Dean W. Myklejord, Appellants, v. Stephen F. MORRIS, M.D., et al., Appellees.
No. 5D99-3615.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Aug. 31, 2000.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 27, 2000.
Carla R. Pepperman and Bradford D. Fisher of Austin & Pepperman, Leesburg, for Appellants.
Robert A. Hannah and Charles J. Meltz of Hannah, Estes & Ingram, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee Premiere Medical Laboratories, P.A.
Gregory F. Reis and Brian L. Smith of Hill, Reis, Adams, Hall & Schieffelin, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee Leesburg Regional Medical Center, Inc.
C. Howard Hunter of Freeman, Hunter & Malloy, Tampa, and Jennings L. Hurt, III, and Henry W. Jewett, II, of Rissman, Weisberg, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLain, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee Stephen F. Morris, M.D.

Opinion:
PLEUS, J.
This is an appeal from dismissal judgments in a medical malpractice case. Appellant was a patient who had cancer which was not detected by the appellee health care providers who appellant claims were negligent in failing to diagnose the cancer.
At issue is whether the statute of limitations bars appellant from suing ap-pellees. The pertinent statute is section 95.11(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1993):
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. An "action for medical malpractice" is defined as a claim in tort or in contract for damages because of the death, injury, or monetary loss to any person arising out of any medical, dental, or surgical diagnosis, treatment, or care by any provider of health care. The limitation of actions within this subsection shall be limited to the health care provider and persons in privity with the provider of health care. 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 4-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.
More precisely, the issue is whether negligent diagnosis of a disease or medical con dition can constitute such "fraud, concealment, or intentional misrepresentation of fact" so as to make applicable the seven-year statute of repose under the above-quoted provision. We hold that a negligent misdiagnosis or failure to diagnose does not constitute concealment as contemplated by the statute.
The complaint in this case was filed more than six years after the alleged negligent act occurred. This is not a case in which the health care providers intentionally withheld the diagnosis or intentionally misrepresented the results. The complaint does not set forth any facts which would establish a basis to extend the statute of repose beyond four years.
"Concealment" required to extend the statute of repose in medical malpractice matters to seven years requires fraud, intent to conceal or some other active element. Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So.2d 25 (Fla.1976). See also Almengor v. Dade County, 359 So.2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Concealment also requires knowledge (by the tortfeasor) about plaintiff's condition which is not conveyed to plaintiff. Nardone, 333 So.2d at 37. In such instances, the plaintiff is being actively misled about his or her true condition by the tortfeasor. Conceptually, this intentional withholding of information acts to delay plaintiffs ability to discover the tortfea-sor's wrongdoing or the nature of the injury itself.
We find no rational basis for making negligent diagnosis subject to a seven-year repose period where other acts of simple negligence are governed by a four-year period.
The trial court was correct in dismissing the complaint with prejudice and entering summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA, J., concurs in result only.
DAUKSCH, J., dissents, with opinion.