Opinion ID: 1737977
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: medical malpractice statutory scheme

Text: We begin with a review of the medical malpractice statutory scheme and its purpose, both of which directly affect the resolution of this case. It appears that the Legislature adopted the presuit procedures of chapter 766 based upon a concern about the perceived increase in the amount of medical malpractice claims paid and a perceived corresponding increase in malpractice liability insurance premiums. See § 766.201(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997). In section 766.201(2), the Legislature expressly states it was their intent to provide a plan for prompt resolution of medical negligence claims. Courts have often characterized the legislative intent of the medical malpractice statutory scheme as promoting the settlement of meritorious claims at an early stage without the necessity of a full adversarial proceeding. Cohen v. Dauphinee, 739 So.2d 68, 71 (Fla.1999) (quoting Williams v. Campagnulo, 588 So.2d 982, 983 (Fla.1991); see also Patry v. Capps, 633 So.2d 9, 11-12 (Fla.1994)). A key aspect of this statutory scheme is the promotion of settlement options and negotiations between the parties out of court. The provisions for tolling and extending the limitations period are part of this scheme.