Opinion ID: 1641790
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Stebilla

Text: In Stebilla v. Mussallem, 595 So.2d 136 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), the Fifth District reversed a trial court's dismissal of a medical malpractice action and held that the plaintiffs' failure to provide a corroborating medical expert opinion at the time the notice of intent to sue was filed was not a jurisdictional defect. Id. at 138. In Stebilla the defendants refused to engage in presuit discovery on the grounds that the presuit notice was invalid because a corroborating medical opinion was not provided at the same time. In reversing the order of dismissal, the court discussed the purposes underlying the presuit investigation requirements: There are disparate purposes underlying the requirement of serving a notice of intent to sue and the requirement of providing a verified written medical expert opinion corroborating reasonable grounds to support a claim of medical negligence. The purpose of a notice of intent to sue is to give the defendant notice of the incident in order to allow investigation of the matter and promote presuit settlement of the claim. The expert corroborative opinion, on the other hand, is designed to prevent the filing of baseless litigation. As stated by the appellants in their brief: The expert opinion to be supplied is not one which delineates how the defendants were negligent. Section 766.104 refers to a written medical opinion that there appears to be evidence of medical negligence. Section 766.203(2) provides that the medical expert opinion is for corroboration of reasonable grounds to initiate medical negligence litigation. And § 766.205(1) specifically provides that the medical opinion need only corroborate that there exists reasonable grounds for a claim of negligent injury. Obviously, the corroborative medical opinion adds nothing to the Plaintiffs' notice of their claim. It merely assures the Defendants, and the court, that a medical expert has determined that there is justification for the Plaintiffs' claim, i.e., that it is not a frivolous medical malpractice claim. The purpose of the medical expert opinion is to corroborate that the claim is legitimate, not to give notice of it. In [ Hospital Corp. of America v. ] Lindberg [571 So.2d 446 (Fla.1990)], the Florida Supreme Court was faced with essentially the same question which confronts us here: Is a medical malpractice plaintiff's failure to comply with the presuit screening process provided by Chapter 766 within the applicable statute of limitations fatal, as a matter of law, to the plaintiff's cause of action? The supreme court held in Lindberg that the answer to that question is no. It held that the plaintiff could proceed so long as the notice of intent and the complaint were filed within the statutory period. In that case, the plaintiffs had failed to allege compliance with presuit notice investigation requirements, and the defendants contended that upon expiration of the statute of limitations, the trial court was without subject matter jurisdiction to allow amendment of the complaint to include allegations of compliance with the statutory requirements. The supreme court disagreed with that conclusion, and held that where a complaint and presuit notice are simultaneously filed and served within the applicable statute of limitations, the plaintiff may subsequently (even after expiration of the statutory period) file an amended complaint asserting compliance with the presuit screening process. Id. at 139 (first emphasis added). Similarly, in Gargano v. Costarella, 618 So.2d 786 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), the same court held that the failure to provide a corroborating expert opinion with the notice of intent does not justify dismissal of a claim if the corroborating opinion is filed before the expiration of the statutory limitations period. Unlike the decisions in Stebilla and Gargano, the decision below held that the plaintiffs' initial failure to strictly comply with the presuit requirements of the statute prior to filing their notice of intent to sue was fatal to their claim, regardless of any subsequent compliance with the statute's requirements prior to the expiration of the limitations period. [3] This holding is inconsistent with our prior construction of the statutory scheme. As noted in Stebilla, this Court has held that the failure to comply with the presuit requirements of the statute is not necessarily fatal to a plaintiff's claim so long as compliance is accomplished within the two-year limitations period provided for filing suit. 595 So.2d at 139. In Williams v. Campagnulo, 588 So.2d 982 (Fla.1991), we upheld the dismissal of an action wherein no notice of intent was filed within the statute of limitations period. Id. at 983. We also stated: We made it clear in Ingersoll [ v. Hoffman, 589 So.2d 223 (Fla.1991)] and in Lindberg that compliance with the prefiling notice requirement of section 768.57 was a condition precedent to maintaining an action for malpractice and, although it may be complied with after the filing of the complaint, the notice must be given within the statute of limitations period. Id. In Hospital Corp. v. Lindberg, 571 So.2d 446 (Fla.1990), we held that a notice of intent was timely so long as it was filed within the statutory limitations period. We also cited with approval the statement in Malunney v. Pearlstein, 539 So.2d 493, 496 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 547 So.2d 1210 (Fla.1989), that the presuit screening requirements were not intended to oust a plaintiff from the ability to pursue a new or subsequent action for the alleged malpractice, after failing initially to timely comply with the notice requirements. Id. at 449. In Ingersoll v. Hoffman, 589 So.2d 223 (Fla.1991), we set aside the dismissal of a claim on the basis of waiver and reaffirmed our holding in Lindberg: The certified question was partially answered by this Court's recent decision in Hospital Corp. of America v. Lindberg, 571 So.2d 446 (Fla.1990), in which we held that the failure to follow the presuit notice and screening requirements of section 768.57 and the presuit investigation and certification requirements of section 768.495(1) is not jurisdictional. Id. at 224. This same rule has been applied to other defaults under the presuit requirements of the statute, such as the furnishing of a verified corroborating medical affidavit. See Shands Teaching Hosp. v. Miller, 642 So.2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) [4] (holding that medical malpractice claimant is required to submit corroborating medical expert opinion in support of claim prior to expiration of statute of limitations), dismissed, 657 So.2d 1163 (Fla.1995); Miami Physical Therapy Assoc., Inc. v. Savage, 632 So.2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (applying Williams and holding that notice required by section 766.106 must be filed within statute of limitations); Stein v. Feingold, 629 So.2d 998 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (applying Stebilla and Lindberg and holding that affidavit of expert witness is timely filed when filed within statutory limitations period); see also Suarez v. St. Joseph's Hosp., Inc., 634 So.2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (holding failure to verify medical opinion at time notice of intent to initiate litigation and complaint were filed is not fatal if compliance is secured prior to expiration of statute of limitations). [5] We think the same reasoning should apply here. There is no dispute here that all of the parties engaged in pretrial discovery and had a full and fair opportunity to investigate this claim prior to the initiation of suit and well within the statutory limitations period. The record reflects without dispute that by the time the parties had completed their presuit discovery, and more than a month before suit was filed, the defendants had been provided a fully verified corroborating expert opinion in support of the claim. [6] This expert opinion, along with the other circumstances of the claim, mooted any issue as to the existence of a reasonable basis for the claim. [7] All of this was done not only in advance of suit, but while almost a year remained for filing suit within the statutory limitations period. By the time presuit discovery was concluded, all requirements of the statute had been met and any potential prejudice to the defendants of having to defend against a frivolous suit had been eliminated. Accordingly, just as we have held that other presuit requirements of the statute could be met within the limitations period, we see no basis for concluding otherwise here. This decision is also consistent with our prior holdings favoring access to the courts, while still carrying out the legislative policy of requiring the parties to engage in meaningful presuit investigation, discovery and negotiations. We agree with the proposition that the medical malpractice statutory scheme must be interpreted liberally so as not to unduly restrict a Florida citizen's constitutionally guaranteed access to the courts, while at the same time carrying out the legislative policy of screening out frivolous lawsuits and defenses. In Weinstock v. Groth, 629 So.2d 835 (Fla.1993), we stated that [T]he purpose of the chapter 766 presuit requirements is to alleviate the high cost of medical negligence claims through early determination and prompt resolution of claims, not to deny access to the courts to plaintiffs.... Id. at 838; see also Patry v. Capps, 633 So.2d 9, 11, 13 (Fla.1994); Ragoonanan v. Associates in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 619 So.2d 482, 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (asserting that sections 766.201 through 766.212 were not intended to require presuit litigation of all the issues in medical negligence claims nor to deny parties access to the court on the basis of technicalities); George A. Morris III, M.D., P.A. v. Ergos, 532 So.2d 1360 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (striking a defendant doctor's defenses for failure to timely respond to presuit discovery requests held too harsh a remedy in absence of prejudice to plaintiff). Under the trial court's strict application of the statute here, a claimant who prematurely filed a notice of intent and later secured a corroborating medical affidavit would be forever barred from court no matter how much time remained for filing suit, or how soon after serving notice the expert corroboration was secured. Such a claimant would be in an even worse position than a claimant who filed no notice at all but is allowed to correct this deficiency within the limitations period. This result is at odds with our interpretation of the statute's requirements as well as the need to balance those requirements with a party's right to go to court.