ERVIN v. ALVAREZ (2025)

Affirmed. See § 95.11(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2016) (“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 incident is discovered, or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence ․”); § 766.104(2), Fla. Stat. (2016) (“Upon petition to the clerk of the court where the suit will be filed and payment to the clerk of a filing fee, ․ an automatic 90-day extension of the statute of limitations shall be granted to allow the reasonable investigation required by subsection (1).”); Porumbescu v. Thompson, 987 So. 2d 1275, 1276–77 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“Once the extension is ‘purchased’ by filing the petition and paying the fee, the statute of limitations becomes two years plus ninety days.”); Tanner v. Hartog, 618 So. 2d 177, 181–82 (Fla. 1993) (“The nature of the injury, standing alone, may be such that it communicates the possibility of medical negligence, in which event the statute of limitations will immediately begin to run upon discovery of the injury itself.”); Hazen v. Kaplan, 734 So. 2d 441, 443 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (“The evidence before the trial court showed Hazen was ambulatory before entering the hospital, though he was experiencing weakness in his legs and severe lumbar back pain. More than twelve hours after undergoing the myelogram, Hazen discovered he was still numb from his hips down and his legs were paralyzed. Although medical staff told him the numbness and paralysis were caused by the anesthetic which had not worn off, Hazen reasonably suspected something was amiss because, in his experience, anesthetic effects dissipate in four to five hours.”).

PER CURIAM.