DIANA AND ERNESTO PATINO, APPELLANTS,
v.
DR. NEIL EINHORN, INDIVIDUALLY, D/B/A EINHORN EYE CARE CENTER, AND ALP FREDDY'S LIMITED PARTNERSHIP D/B/A FREDDY'S, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Presuit Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We find that the trial court erred in requiring the plaintiffs in a negligence action against an optometrist to meet the presuit requirements of Chapter 766, Fla.Stat. (1995). The provisions of this chapter are limitations on Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution, and therefore should be strictly construed. See GBB Investments, Inc. v. Hinterkopf, 343 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Optometrists are not enumerated in Section 768.50(2)(b),1 and therefore there is no presuit notice required as a condi tion to maintaining the negligence action in the trial court. The final order dismissing the cause on this ground, be and the same is hereby reversed and the matter returned to the trial court for further proceedings.
. Section 768.50(2)(b) was repealed in 1986 by Ch. 86-160, § 68 Laws of Fla., but remains viable for this purpose because it is referred to in section 766.102(1), Fla.Stat. (1995). See Weinstock v. Groth, 629 So. 2d 835, 838 (Fla.1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Integrated Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Lang-Redway, 783 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…hts. At least when these conditions affect common law rights, they must be strictly construed. See Kukral v. Mekras, 679 So. 2d 278 (Fla.1996); Community Blood Ctrs. of S. Fla., Int. v. Damiano, 697 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Patino v. Einhorn, 670 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). In this case, the statutory rights created in chapter 400 are not common law rights. Florida’s policies favoring access to courts, however, weigh against interpreting the presuit conditions in chapter 766 to regulate statutory ri…
-
Cmty. Blood Ctrs. OF S. Fla., Inc. v. Francine Damiano, 697 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…, our supreme court reasoned that a narrow construction of the presuit notice requirements is in accord with the rule that restrictions on access to the courts must be strictly construed in a manner that favors access. Id. at 838; Patino v. Einhorn, 670 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Thus, the court in Weinstock [*952] intended to limit the classifications of defendants entitled to presuit notice to minimize its effect on the • constitutionally-protected right to access to the courts. See Art. I, § 21, Fla. C…
-
Dirga v. Rex A. Butler, M.D., 39 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…nstrued the term “health care provider” as used in medical malpractice actions “in accord with the rule that restrictions on access to the courts must be construed in a manner that favors access.” See Weinstock, 629 So. 2d at 838; Patino v. Einhorn, 670 So. 2d 1179, 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). In Sova Drugs, Inc. v. Barnes, 661 So. 2d 393, 395 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), the Fifth District followed the guidance of the supreme court and held that in the absence of their inclusion in the definition of “health care provide…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Ronda C. Weinstock, PH.D. v. Groth, 629 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 1993)
- G.B.B. Invs., Inc. v. Hinterkopf, 343 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)