NICOLE CHAPMAN, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER PARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS, VERNA D. CHAPMAN AND KENNETH CHAPMAN, AND VERNA D. CHAPMAN AND KENNETH CHAPMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA PATIENT'S COMPENSATION FUND, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed summary judgment against the Fund, holding that the two-year statute of limitations in medical malpractice actions applies to the Florida Patient's Compensation Fund the same as to health care providers, barring claims against the Fund not timely filed even if timely filed against the insured provider.
The two-year statute of limitations in medical malpractice actions applies to the Florida Patient's Compensation Fund identically to health care providers, barring Fund liability when not named as a defendant within two years of the cause of action's accrual.
[1] The two-year statute of limitations applicable to medical malpractice actions against health care providers applies equally to the Florida Patient's Compensation Fund, ba…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNicole Chapman, a minor, and her parents sued for medical malpractice. The action was timely commenced against the insured health care provider but th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Patient'S Compensation Fund cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In Taddiken v. Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund, 478 So. 2d 1058 (Fla.1985), the supreme court held that the two-year statute of limitations in a medical malpractice action applies to the Fund the same as it applies to a health care provider so that where the Fund is not made a defendant in an action within two years of the date the cause of action arose, the action will be barred against the Fund notwithstanding that the action was commenced timely against its insured health care provider. Taddiken, which was decided while this appeal from a summary judgment was pending, answers the question presented.
Another question still to be answered, first raised by appellants in their reply brief, is where multiple alleged joint and several medical negligence defendant tortfeasors are sued, some of whom are “insured” by the Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund, will the decision in Taddiken v. Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund operate to bar Fund responsibility as to that defendant to whom the Fund was untimely joined where the Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund is timely joined as to at least one of the remaining defendants.
We affirm the summary judgment for the Fund as to the issue which was presented in this case and subsequently decided by the supreme court in Taddiken. We do not decide the question now raised by appellants in their reply brief, because it was not before the trial court.
Affirmed.