ALLEN BERRY, D.D.S., PETITIONER,
v.
HONORABLE GEORGE ORR AND HONORABLE DAVID M. GERSTEN, AS JUDGES OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND ANTONIO BENDECK, RESPONDENTS
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.
Section 768.57, Florida Statutes prefiling notice requirements apply to dental malpractice actions, and failure to comply deprives the trial court of jurisdiction, warranting a writ of prohibition.
Section 768.57, Florida Statutes prefiling notice requirements are applicable to dental malpractice actions, and noncompliance deprives the trial court of jurisdiction.
[1] Section 768.57, Florida Statutes prefiling notice requirements apply to dental malpractice actions, and failure to comply deprives the trial court of subject matter juris…
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 intelligenceAntonio and Mafalda Bendeck filed a dental malpractice action against dentist Allen Berry without complying with statutory prefiling notice requiremen…
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 Dental Malpractice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The central question presented for review is whether the prefiling notice requirements established by Section 768.57, Florida Statutes (1985) are applicable to dental malpractice actions. Based on the indistinguishable authority of MacDonald v. McIver, 514 So. 2d 1151 (Fla.2d DCA 1987), with which we agree, we hold that the above-stated statutory notice requirements are so applicable. Because the plaintiffs herein, Antonio and Mafalda Ben-deck, did not, admittedly, comply with such statutory notice requirements prior to filing their dental malpractice action against the defendant Allen Berry, D.D.S. in the trial court below, it is clear that the trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the aforesaid action, and that, accordingly, a writ of prohibition lies, MacDonald; Public Health Trust v. Knuck, 495 So. 2d 834 (Fla.3d DCA 1986); cf. Bondurant v. Geeker, 499 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. dismissed, 515 So. 2d 214 (Fla.1987); we specifically reject the respondents’ claim that prohibition is an inappropriate remedy in these circumstances.
Accordingly, the petition for a writ of prohibition filed by the defendant herein is granted, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ dental malpractice action below.
Prohibition granted; cause remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Solimando v. Int'l Med. Ctrs., 544 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…clude that the legislature has granted a substantive jurisdictional defense to a private sector of the community by way of section 768.57 while denying that same defense to the sovereign. The appellees rely principally on the cases of Berry v. Orr, 537 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), MacDonald v. McIver, 514 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) and Pearl-stein I in support of their position. These authorities do not dictate an affirmance of the lower court. The issue in Pearlstein I was whether or not section 768.5…1 / 2
-
Ingersoll v. Warren Hoffman, D.D.S., 561 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Because this court has held that the notice requirement of Section 768.57 is jurisdictional, failure to provide adequate notice shall result in dismissal. Bendeck v. Berry, 546 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Berry v. Orr, 537 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) review denied, 545 So. 2d 1368 (Fla.1989). It is also noted that no certificate, in accordance with the provisions of Section 768.495(1), Florida Statutes (1987), was ever supplied as to Dr. Warren Hoffman, therefore, the final or…
-
Campagnulo v. Williams, 563 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…ellant unreasonably fails to comply with the statute, the trial court may either dismiss appellant’s claims or defenses. Finally, we reject appellant’s argument that section 768.57, Florida Statutes (1985), does not apply to dentists. Berry v. Orr, 537 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 545 So. 2d 1368 (Fla.1989), appeal after remand, 546 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); McDonald v. McIver, 514 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED. DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pub. Health Tr. OF Dade Cnty. v. The Honorable Francis X. Knuck, 495 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Mathis v. State, 515 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1987)
- Bondurant v. Nickolas P. Geeker, 515 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1987)
- Robert E. Bondurant, M.D. v. The Honorable Nicholas P. Geeker, 499 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Robert C. MacDONALD, D.D.S. v. Honorable William C. McIVER, 514 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)