Case Name: James S. PARHAM, Appellant, v. Gene A. BALIS, M.D., Chester E. Sutterlin, III, M.D., Chester E. Sutterlin, III, M.D., P.A., and Musculoskeletal Institute Chartered, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-11-12
Citations: 704 So. 2d 623
Docket Number: No. 96-03037
Parties: James S. PARHAM, Appellant, v. Gene A. BALIS, M.D., Chester E. Sutterlin, III, M.D., Chester E. Sutterlin, III, M.D., P.A., and Musculoskeletal Institute Chartered, Appellees.
Judges: THREADGILL, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 704
Pages: 623–627

Head Matter:
James S. PARHAM, Appellant, v. Gene A. BALIS, M.D., Chester E. Sutterlin, III, M.D., Chester E. Sutterlin, III, M.D., P.A., and Musculoskeletal Institute Chartered, Appellees.
No. 96-03037.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Nov. 12, 1997.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 9, 1998.
William J. Terry, Tampa, for Appellant.
Clifford L. Somers, Tampa, for Appellee Gene A. Balis, M.D.
Martin B. Unger and Brian D. Stokes of Unger, Swartwood, Latham & Whitaker, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees Chester E. Sut-terlin, III, M.D. and Chester E. Sutterlin, III, M.D., P.A.
Thomas M. Hoeler and Glenn M. Burton of Shear, Newman Hahn & Rosenkranz, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee Musculoskeletal Institute Chartered, d/b/a Florida Orthopaedic Institute.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James S. Parham, plaintiff in a medical malpractice action, appeals the dismissal of his amended complaint which the trial court found to be barred by the statute of repose contained in section 95.11(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1989). This statute prescribes:. (1) a statute of limitations of two years; (2) a statute of repose of four years absent fraud or intentional misconduct; and (3) a statute of repose of seven years where there is an allegation that fraud, concealment, or intentional misrepresentation of fact prevented discovery of the negligent conduct. The issue raised in this appeal is whether the extensions of the statute of limitations allowed by sections 766.104(2) and 766.106(4), Florida Statutes (1989), also extend the statute of repose. We hold that they do and, therefore, reverse the order of dismissal.
As a result of injuries sustained in a fall, Parham underwent a two-part surgical procedure which included a neck fusion using a pedicle screw. The procedures were performed by appellees Gene A. Balis, M.D., and Chester E. Sutterlin, III, M.D., who were employed by, or associated with, appellee Musculoskeletal Institute, Chartered, at the time of the surgery.
The surgical procedures took place on December 18,1990, and January 29,1991. Par-ham alleged that he discovered the negligence on December 17,1993, when he was alerted to the hazards of pedicle screws by a television news documentary. On December 16,1994, Parham filed a petition, pursuant to section 766.104(2), for an automatic 90-day extension of the two-year statute of limitations. On March 17, 1995, he served notice of his intent to initiate litigation pursuant to section 766.106, and on April . 17, 1995, he served an amended notice adding Musculo-skeletal Institute.
Parham filed an initial complaint for medical malpractice on July 20, 1995, and an amended complaint which added Dr. Sutter-lin as a defendant on September 1, 1995. After considering a series of motions, the trial court eventually concluded that Par-ham's action was barred and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. In its order of dismissal, the trial court made the following pertinent rulings:
As noted earlier it is undisputed that the surgical procedure-which forms the basis of this lawsuit occurred on January 29, 1991. Accordingly, on that date the Statute of Repose's time period commenced and the Plaintiffs were required to file their suit on or before January 29, 1995. It is also undisputed that suit was not filed as to Defendants, GENE A.. BALIS, M.D. and MUSCULOSKELETAL INSTITUTE, CHARTERED, until July 20, 1995. Defendants CHESTER E..SUTTERLIN, III, M.D. and CHESTER E. SUTTER-LIN, III, M.D., P.A., were not made parties until September 1, 1995, the date on which the Amended Complaint naming them was filed.
In a series of cases the Florida Supreme Court has rejected a number of different attempts to extend the repose time period. See, e.g., Carr v. Broward County, 541 So.2d 92 (Fla.1989); University of Miami v. Bogorff, 583 So.2d 1000 (Fla.1991); and, Kush v. Lloyd, 616 So.2d 415 (Fla.1992). Accordingly, Plaintiffs' contention that the repose time period was extended or tolled by their petition pursuant to Florida Stat utes § 766.104 or their service of a "Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation" as required by Florida Statute § 766.106, cannot be sustained. The Court rejects the applicability of Moore v. Winter Haven Hospital, 579 So.2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) to the undisputed facts of this case.
We first observe that the trial court was without authority to reject our opinion in Moore v. Winter Haven Hospital, 579 So.2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). See Wood v. Fraser, 677 So.2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). In Moore, this court determined that the four-year statute of repose was tolled by the service of a notice of intent to initiate medical malpractice litigation as provided for in section 768.57(4), Florida Statutes (1987) [now transferred to 766.106(4) ] because "[t]he 'statute of repose' is subsumed in the general term 'statute of limitations' of section 95.11(4)." Applying the same reasoning that we applied in Moore, we conclude that the 90-day extension allowed by section 766.104(2) extends both the statute of limitation and the statute of repose. Furthermore, as we explained in Wood, we discern nothing in the holding of Kush which compels us to conclude that it overruled Moore. Even though the trial court here apparently reached a different conclusion, "in the absence of a clear expression from the Florida Supreme Court, the issue of whether one of our opinions is in conflict with a later supreme court opinion should be left to our determination." Wood, 677 So.2d at 18.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order dismissing the amended complaint and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Because our holding in this case will potentially impact many medical malpractice claims, we certify the following question as one of great public importance:
DO THE EXTENSIONS OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ALLOWED BY SECTIONS 766.104(2) AND 766.106(4), FLORIDA STATUTES (1989), ALSO EXTEND THE STATUTE OFREPOSE CONTAINED IN SECTION 95.11(4)(B), FLORIDA STATUTES (1989)?
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
FULMER, J., concurs specially in result only.
. Section 95.11 (4)(b) 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 thé incident or occurrence out of which the cause of action accrued.
. Section 766.104(2) provides:
Upon petition to the clerk of the court where the suit will be filed and payment to the clerk of a filing fee, not to exceed $25, established by the chief judge, an automatic 90-day extension of the statute of limitations shall be granted to allow the reasonable investigation required by subsection (1). This period shall be in addition to other tolling periods. No court order is required for the extension to be effective. The provisions of this subsection shall not be deemed to revive a cause of action on which the statute of limitations has run.
.Section 766.106(4) provides in part:
The notice of intent to initiate litigation shall be served within the time limits set forth in s. 95.11. However, during the 90-day period, the statute of limitations is tolled as to all potential defendants.