Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Supreme Court of Florida
November 4, 1993, Decided
[*481] OVERTON, J.
James Curtis Boyd petitions for review of Boyd v. Becker, 603 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), in which the district court held that Boyd's medical malpractice action was [*482] barred by section 766.106(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), the statute of limitations for medical malpractice suits. The district court acknowledged that section 766.106(3)(c) conflicts with section 766.106(3)(a) inasmuch as the former section provides a longer period in which to file suit. However, the district court found that the conflict between the statutes was resolved by this Court's adoption of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.650 and that it was bound to follow this rule. The [**2] district court also acknowledged that its decision conflicts with Barron v. Crenshaw, 573 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). We find conflict and have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.
For the reasons expressed, we conclude that subsections (a) and (c) of section 766.106(3) should be construed so that Boyd's lawsuit was timely filed. Our construction of these statutes requires that we modify Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.650 to conform to this statutory interpretation.
In order to understand the facts in this case, it is necessary to first examine the statutory provisions involved. The statutes at issue are sections 95.11(4)(b) and 766.106(2)-(4), Florida Statutes (1989). These sections set forth certain statutory prerequisites to the filing of a medical malpractice action, prerequisites that directly affect how the statute of limitations period for a malpractice action is computed. The pertinent part of section 95.11(4)(b) reads as follows:
(b) 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 [**3] incident is discovered, or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence . . . .
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
627 So. 2d 481 *; 1993 Fla. LEXIS 1765 **; 18 Fla. L. Weekly S 573
JAMES CURTIS BOYD, Petitioner, v. FERDINAND F. BECKER, M.D., Respondent.
Prior History: [**1] Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Direct Conflict of Decisions. Fourth District - Case No. 91-2334 (Inidian River County).
mailed, statute of limitations, district court, notice, ninety-day, initiate, insurer, ninety days, statutory provisions, notice of intent, receive notice, malpractice, medical malpractice, computed, lawsuit
Governments, Legislation, Statute of Limitations, Time Limitations, Torts, Procedural Matters, General Overview, Malpractice & Professional Liability, Healthcare Providers