Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Jessica RAFFERTY a/n/g for Noah Hendershot, Appellant, v. MARTIN MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Margaret Ann Clutch, CNM, ARNP and, Women's Health Specialists II, LLC., Appellees.
We affirm the order granting a motion to dismiss a medical negligence complaint for failure to comply with the corroboration requirements of section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (2018). The plaintiff below sued a midwife and the hospital staff for medical negligence during the delivery of a baby, who suffered a shoulder dystocia injury. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss as it applied to the hospital and the nursing staff.
While the corroborating statements the plaintiff submitted with the notice of intent identified reasonable grounds to initiate medical malpractice litigation against the midwife who delivered the baby, nothing in the statements addressed any deficiencies in the care provided by the hospital and its nursing staff. Thus, dismissal is required pursuant to the plain text of section 766.206(2), Florida Statutes (2018). See Univ. of S. Fla. Bd. of Trs. v. Mann, 159 So. 3d 283, 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (“Because the affidavit is plainly insufficient as a statement to corroborate reasonable grounds to support a claim of medical malpractice as to the nurses and supervisors, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in denying [the hospital's] motion to dismiss ․”); Duffy v. Brooker, 614 So. 2d 539, 545–46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (interpreting “sections 766.203(2) and 766.203(3) to require that the ‘corroboration’ statements outline the factual basis for the medical experts’ opinions” and rejecting as insufficient “conclusory allegations” that did not “sufficiently indicate the manner in which the [medical provider] allegedly deviated from the standard of care”), abrogated on other grounds as recognized in Archer v. Maddux, 645 So. 2d 544, 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
Affirmed.
Per Curiam.
Warner, Gross and Artau, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 4D21-368
Decided: March 23, 2022
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)