Title: JB v. Sacred Heart Hosp. of Pensacola
Citation: 635 So. 2d 945
Docket Number: 82147
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: April 21, 1994

635 So. 2d 945 (1994)
J.B., et al., Appellants,
v.
SACRED HEART HOSPITAL OF PENSACOLA, Appellee.
No. 82147.

Supreme Court of Florida.
April 21, 1994.
*946 Charles J. Ballay and Adrian A. Colon, Jr., of Ballay &amp; Braud, Belle Chasse, for appellants.
Karen O. Emmanuel of Emmanuel, Sheppard &amp; Condon, Pensacola, for appellee.
SHAW, Justice.
We have for review two certified questions from federal circuit court[1] that are determinative of a cause pending before that court and for which there appears to be no controlling precedent:
J.B. v. Sacred Heart Hospital, 996 F.2d 276, 278 (11th Cir.1993). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(6), Fla. Const. We answer both questions in the negative.
J.B., his wife, and their three minor children, who are all Mississippi residents, filed suit in federal district court[2] against Sacred Heart Hospital of Pensacola (Hospital) based on the following facts as alleged in the complaint:
The complaint alleged that the Hospital was negligent in arranging for J.B. to transport L.B. in that it knew of L.B.'s condition, the level of care that would be required in transporting him, and the risk involved:
And finally, the complaint alleged damages to J.B., his wife, and three minor children. J.B. has contracted the AIDS virus, his wife has been exposed to it through him, and his children have suffered a loss of relationship with their father:
The federal district court ruled that J.B.'s complaint stated a claim for medical malpractice and was thus subject to the presuit notice and screening procedures set out in chapter 766, Florida Statutes (1989). Because J.B. did not follow those procedures, the court dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the federal circuit court declined to rule on J.B.'s claim, concluding that the issues are appropriate for resolution by the Florida Supreme Court.
Chapter 95, Florida Statutes (1989), sets a two-year limitations period for medical malpractice actions:
§ 95.11, Fla. Stat. (1989). The statute goes on to define a medical malpractice action:
§ 95.11(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (1989).
The key inquiry under the statute is whether the action "aris[es] out of any medical, dental, or surgical diagnosis, treatment, or care." If there is doubt as to the applicability of such a statute, the question is generally resolved in favor of the claimant. Baskerville-Donovan Eng'rs, Inc. v. Pensacola Executive House Condominium Ass'n, Inc., 581 So. 2d 1301, 1303 (Fla. 1991) ("Where a *948 statute of limitations shortens the existing period of time the statute is generally construed strictly, and where there is reasonable doubt as to legislative intent, the preference is to allow the longer period of time.").
This Court recently addressed the issue of whether a suit constituted a medical malpractice action in Silva v. Southwest Florida Blood Bank, Inc., 601 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 1992). The trial court in Silva ruled that the two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions barred the claimant's suit against a blood bank for releasing units of AIDS-contaminated blood to the treating hospital. The district court affirmed. In determining that the district court erred, we defined "diagnosis, treatment, or care" under section 95.11(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1991):
Id. at 1187 (citations omitted).
We held that the blood bank rendered no diagnosis, treatment, or care to the injured parties:
Id. Accordingly, the suit was not a medical malpractice action for purposes of the statute and the two-year statute of limitations was inapplicable.
We find Silva dispositive of the present issue. According to the allegations in J.B.'s complaint, at the time the Hospital contacted him to drive his brother to Alabama, J.B. had no medical condition for which he sought medical services at the Hospital. His injury arose solely through the Hospital's use of him as a transporter. The simple question we must decide is whether this injury arose from the Hospital's medical diagnosis, treatment, or care of J.B.[3] Applying the law as set forth in Silva, we conclude that it did not. Accordingly, this suit is not a medical malpractice action for chapter 95 purposes and the two-year statute of limitations is inapplicable.
Chapter 766, Florida Statutes (1989), which governs standards for recovery in medical malpractice and medical negligence actions, imposes certain notice and presuit screening requirements upon a claimant. These provisions must be met in order to maintain a medical malpractice or medical negligence action against a health care provider. See Weinstock v. Groth, 629 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 1993).
In delineating the actions to which it applies, section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1989), defines a "[c]laim for medical malpractice":
*949 § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989). And section 766.202, which applies to medical negligence claims, defines "medical negligence," in turn, as medical malpractice:
§ 766.202(6), Fla. Stat. (1989). Reading these two sections in conjunction, we conclude that chapter 766's notice and presuit screening requirements apply to claims that "aris[e] out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services." § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989).
According to the allegations in J.B.'s complaint, the Hospital was negligent in using J.B. as a transporter. The complaint does not allege that the Hospital was negligent in any way in the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services to J.B. Accordingly, the complaint does not state a medical malpractice claim for chapter 766 purposes, and the notice and presuit screening requirements are inapplicable.
Based on the foregoing, we answer both certified questions in the negative, and direct that our decision be forwarded forthwith to the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. We return this case to that court for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
[1]  The questions of Florida law were certified by the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
[2]  The suit was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division.
[3]  The Hospital's claim that this action arose from the medical diagnosis, treatment, or care of L.B. is without merit. J.B., not L.B., is the party allegedly injured by the Hospital's negligence.