Florida
Medical Malpractice Laws in Florida (2026): Deadlines & Caps
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 17, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 17, 2026. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Florida has one of the most detailed pre-suit processes in the country, and its damages rules have changed dramatically because of the courts. A patient generally has two years to sue under Fla. Stat. 95.11, must complete a Chapter 766 pre-suit notice and investigation before filing, and faces no enforceable statutory cap on non-economic damages because the Florida Supreme Court struck the cap down.
This page is general legal information, not legal advice, and it is part of our Medical Malpractice Laws by State series. The deadlines and the pre-suit steps depend on the facts, so confirm your situation with a licensed Florida attorney.
What counts as medical malpractice in Florida?
Florida defines an action for medical malpractice as a claim for damages because of death, injury, or monetary loss arising out of medical, dental, or surgical diagnosis, treatment, or care by a health care provider. The claim requires proof that the provider breached the prevailing professional standard of care and that the breach caused the injury, under Fla. Stat. 766.102. Physicians, dentists, nurses, hospitals, and other licensed providers can be liable. A bad outcome alone does not establish malpractice; the patient must show care that fell below what a reasonably prudent similar provider would have rendered.
The statute of limitations to sue in Florida
Under Fla. Stat. 95.11(5)(c), the paragraph formerly designated 95.11(4)(b), a medical malpractice action must be commenced within two years from the time the incident occurred or within two years from when the incident was discovered, or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence. This discovery rule means the two-year clock can start when a reasonable patient would have learned of the injury and its possible connection to the care, rather than on the date of treatment. The statute applies to claims sounding in tort or contract that arise from medical, dental, or surgical care.
Florida's statute of repose
Florida sets an absolute outer deadline. In no event may a malpractice action be commenced later than four years from the date of the incident, regardless of when the injury is discovered. There is one extension: if fraud, concealment, or intentional misrepresentation prevented discovery, the period can extend, but in no event more than seven years from the incident. A separate exception protects minors, so the four-year and seven-year repose limits do not bar an action brought on behalf of a child on or before the child's eighth birthday.
Damage caps in Florida: the cap was struck down
This is the single most important point for Florida, and it is frequently stated incorrectly. Florida enacted caps on non-economic (pain and suffering) damages in medical malpractice cases in Fla. Stat. 766.118 as part of a 2003 reform, but those caps are no longer enforceable. The Florida Supreme Court held them unconstitutional under the equal-protection guarantee of the Florida Constitution.
The cap fell in two decisions. In Estate of McCall v. United States, 134 So. 3d 894 (Fla. 2014), the court struck down the cap as applied to wrongful-death medical malpractice. In North Broward Hospital District v. Kalitan, 219 So. 3d 49 (Fla. 2017), the court extended that holding to personal-injury malpractice cases, finding the caps arbitrarily reduced compensation without regard to the severity of the injury and lacked a rational basis. The practical result is that Florida currently has no enforceable statutory cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases, and there is no cap on economic damages either. Plugging your own numbers into our Florida settlement calculator gives a rough range based on that current status, not the old struck-down figures.
Watch out: Older articles and even some forms still recite the old Fla. Stat. 766.118 dollar caps as if they apply. After McCall (2014) and Kalitan (2017), those non-economic caps are not enforceable in Florida medical malpractice cases.
Pre-suit notice and investigation under Chapter 766
Florida requires a structured pre-suit process before a malpractice suit can be filed, and skipping it can be fatal to a claim. Under Fla. Stat. 766.203, the claimant must conduct a pre-suit investigation and obtain a verified written medical expert opinion corroborating reasonable grounds for the claim. Under Fla. Stat. 766.106, the claimant then serves each prospective defendant with a notice of intent to initiate litigation, along with the corroborating expert opinion and the required medical records and authorization.
Once notice is served, the claimant cannot file suit for 90 days while the defendant or its insurer investigates and responds by rejecting the claim, offering to settle, or offering to arbitrate damages. Serving the notice tolls the statute of limitations during that 90-day pre-suit period, which then resumes running with whatever time remained when it was tolled. The '60 days or the remainder of the limitations period, whichever is greater' filing window in Fla. Stat. 766.106(4) applies specifically after termination of negotiations during a stipulated extension of the 90-day period, not as a general rule after every standard, unextended pre-suit period. The defense must also corroborate any rejection with its own expert opinion. Both sides come to the table with experts, so ask a Florida medical malpractice lawyer for a free consultation on running the pre-suit investigation and notice within the two-year limit (attorney advertising).
Who can be liable and the expert requirement
Florida malpractice claims can target individual clinicians and the institutions responsible for their care. Physicians, dentists, nurses, and other licensed providers can be sued, and hospitals can be liable for the negligence of their employees. Health care facilities also carry a duty of their own: under Fla. Stat. 766.110, all health care facilities, including hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers, must assure comprehensive risk management and the competence of their medical staff and personnel through careful selection and review, and they are liable for a failure to exercise due care in fulfilling those duties. Florida requires expert testimony to establish the prevailing professional standard of care under Fla. Stat. 766.102, and the law imposes specialty-matching requirements on who may serve as an expert against a particular kind of provider. The same expert support drives the pre-suit corroborating affidavit, so qualified expert review is needed both before and during the case.
Comparative negligence in Florida
Florida's 2023 tort reform (HB 837) changed the state's general negligence rule to modified comparative negligence with a 50 percent bar in Fla. Stat. 768.81, meaning a claimant who is more than 50 percent at fault recovers nothing. Critically, that statute expressly excludes medical negligence cases brought under Chapter 766. As a result, medical malpractice claims in Florida continue to follow pure comparative negligence: a plaintiff's damages are reduced by the plaintiff's share of fault, but the plaintiff is not barred from recovery even if more than 50 percent at fault.
Wrongful-death medical malpractice in Florida
When malpractice causes death, the claim proceeds under Florida's Wrongful Death Act, Fla. Stat. 768.16 to 768.26, which is brought by the personal representative of the estate on behalf of the estate and surviving family members. The McCall decision arose in this wrongful-death setting, which is why the non-economic cap fell first for death cases. The deadlines and the categories of recoverable damages for survivors differ from a standard personal-injury malpractice claim, so identifying the correct framework early matters.
How to evaluate and preserve a possible claim
While every situation is different and this is general information rather than legal advice, people who suspect malpractice in Florida often begin by gathering complete medical records and noting key dates, because the two-year and four-year clocks under 95.11 can be unforgiving. Because Chapter 766 requires a corroborating expert opinion before the notice of intent is served, an attorney typically arranges expert review early. Malpractice cases are commonly handled on a contingency-fee basis, and consulting a licensed Florida attorney early helps navigate the pre-suit steps, though no attorney can promise a particular outcome or dollar amount.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the deadline to sue for medical malpractice in Florida?
Generally two years from the incident or from when it was discovered, under Fla. Stat. 95.11, and never more than four years from the incident (seven years if fraud or concealment hid the injury), with a separate rule for minors. The Chapter 766 pre-suit notice tolls the deadline. Confirm yours with a Florida attorney.
Does Florida cap medical malpractice damages?
No. Florida's statutory caps on non-economic (pain and suffering) damages in Fla. Stat. 766.118 were held unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court in Estate of McCall v. United States (2014) for wrongful death and North Broward Hospital District v. Kalitan (2017) for personal injury. There is currently no enforceable cap on non-economic or economic damages.
Do I need an expert affidavit to file in Florida?
Yes. Before serving the notice of intent, Fla. Stat. 766.203 requires a verified written medical expert opinion corroborating reasonable grounds for the claim, and that corroborating opinion is served with the notice of intent under Fla. Stat. 766.106. Expert testimony is also required to prove the standard of care under 766.102.
What is Florida's pre-suit process for malpractice?
Under Chapter 766, a claimant investigates the claim, obtains a corroborating expert opinion, then serves each prospective defendant a notice of intent to initiate litigation. Suit cannot be filed for 90 days while the defendant investigates and responds. The deadline is tolled during that period.
How much is a medical malpractice case worth in Florida?
There is no set figure. Because Florida no longer enforces a non-economic cap, value depends on the specific evidence of medical costs, lost income, and pain and suffering, and on disputed liability and causation. No attorney can guarantee a result or a dollar amount.
Are the old Florida 766.118 damage caps still in effect?
No. The non-economic caps in Fla. Stat. 766.118 are not enforceable after McCall (2014) and Kalitan (2017). Despite this, some outdated materials still recite the old cap amounts, so be cautious about any source that says a non-economic cap currently applies.
Does fault reduce my recovery in a Florida malpractice case?
Yes, but Florida medical malpractice claims use pure comparative negligence. Your damages are reduced by your share of fault, but you are not barred from recovery even if more than 50 percent at fault, because the 2023 reform's 50 percent bar in Fla. Stat. 768.81 excludes Chapter 766 cases.
What is the deadline for a wrongful-death malpractice claim in Florida?
Wrongful-death malpractice claims proceed under Florida's Wrongful Death Act, Fla. Stat. 768.16 to 768.26, brought by the estate's personal representative, and remain subject to the medical malpractice limitations framework in 95.11. Because the deadlines and recoverable damages differ, confirm the correct framework with an attorney.
Updates
Updated the Florida statute of limitations citation to its current designator, Fla. Stat. 95.11(5)(c), and added Fla. Stat. 766.110 as the provision that supports hospital and health care facility liability.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected an overgeneralized claim about Fla. Stat. 766.106(4)'s post-notice filing window. The live statute text (leg.state.fl.us) ties the '60 days or the remainder of the limitations period, whichever is greater' rule specifically to termination of negotiations during a stipulated extension beyond the standard 90 days; it is not a blanket rule that applies after every standard 90-day pre-suit period. Fixed in the Pre-suit notice section.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Florida Statutes
§ 766.102Medical negligence; standards of recovery; expert witness.In force
(1) In any action for recovery of damages based on the death or personal injury of any person in which it is alleged that such death or injury resulted from the negligence of a health care provider as defined in s. 766.202(4), the claimant shall have the burden of proving by the greater weight of evidence that the alleged actions of the health care provider represented a breach of the prevailing professional standard of care for that health care provider. The prevailing professional standard of care for a given health care provider shall be that level of care, skill, and treatment which, in light of all relevant surrounding circumstances, is recognized as acceptable and appropriate by reasonably prudent similar health care providers.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-06 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 60 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Tuyuana L. Morris, etc. v. Orlando S. Muniz, M.D. (Supreme Court of Florida 2018, 252 So. 3d 1143)“…766.202(6) refers to and incorporates the requirements of section 766.102, Florida Statutes (2011), which…”
- Simon Dockswell v. Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Inc., etc. (Supreme Court of Florida 2017, 42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 32)“…tual language of the statute. We turn first to the text of section 766.102, Florida Statutes, which provides both for the general p…”
- Oken v. Williams (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2009, 23 So. 3d 140)“…insufficient to satisfy the presuit requirement outlined in section 766.102, Florida Statutes (2007). Specifically, petitioners alleg…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 95.11Limitations other than for the recovery of real property.In forcecited in 16 of our articles
Actions other than for recovery of real property shall be commenced as follows:(1) WITHIN TWENTY YEARS.—An action on a judgment or decree of a court of record in this state. (2) WITHIN FIVE YEARS.—(a) An action on a judgment or decree of any court, not of record, of this state or any court of the United States, any other state or territory in the United States, or a foreign country. (b) A legal or equitable action on a contract, obligation, or liability founded on a written instrument, except for an action to enforce a claim against a payment bond, which shall be governed by the applicable provisions of paragraph (6)(e), s. 255.05(10), s. 337.18(1), or s. 713.23(1)(e), and except for an action for a deficiency judgment governed by paragraph (6)(g). (c) An action to foreclose a mortgage. (d) An action alleging a willful violation of s. 448.110. (e) Notwithstanding paragraph (b), an action for breach of a property insurance contract, with the period running from the date of loss. (3) WITHIN FOUR YEARS.—(a) An action relating to the determination of paternity, with the time running from the date the child reaches the age of majority.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 698 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Merkle v. Robinson (1999) held that the significant relationship test governs conflict of law questions about section 95.11, so a claim time-barred in Florida may proceed under another state's period. Foley v. Morris (1976) applied a shortened 95.11 period to a pre-existing claim where the plaintiff still had the full new period.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Merkle v. Robinson (Supreme Court of Florida 1999, 737 So. 2d 540)✓A West Virginia patient sued a doctor's estate in Florida, where he had retired; her claim was untimely under Florida law but not West Virginia's. The court held the significant relationship test governs conflicts involving section 95.11, so West Virginia's period applied.
- Foley v. Morris (District Court of Appeal of Florida 1976, 325 So. 2d 37)✓A surgeon left a rubber drain in a patient in 1971; suit came in 1974, after Florida replaced the four-year period with the two-year medical malpractice period in section 95.11(6). The court applied the new period from its effective date and affirmed dismissal.
- State ex rel. Gerstein v. Hialeah Race Course, Inc. (Supreme Court of Florida 1971, 245 So. 2d 53)✓A state attorney sued racetrack operators over political contributions. Holding the campaign statute's four-year period unconstitutional as applied, the court ruled the general one-year limit in section 95.11(7)(a) governed, so the late complaint was properly dismissed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Florida Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights, Florida Hit and Run Laws: Penalties and What to Do, Florida Car Accident Laws: No-Fault, PIP, and Your Claim
§ 766.106Notice before filing action for medical negligence; presuit screening period; offers for admission of liability and for arbitration; informal discovery; review.In force
(1) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section, the term:(a) “Claim for medical negligence” or “claim for medical malpractice” means a claim, arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services. (b) “Self-insurer” means any self-insurer authorized under s. 627.357 or any uninsured prospective defendant. (c) “Insurer” includes the Joint Underwriting Association. (2) PRESUIT NOTICE.—(a) After completion of presuit investigation pursuant to s. 766.203(2) and before filing a complaint for medical negligence, a claimant shall notify each prospective defendant of intent to initiate litigation for medical negligence by at least one of the following verifiable means:1. United States Postal Service certified mail, return receipt requested; 2. United States Postal Service mail with a tracking number; 3. An interstate commercial mail carrier or delivery service; or 4. Any person authorized by law to serve process. (b)1.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 138 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Emma Gayle Weaver, etc. v. Stephen C. Myers, M.D. (Supreme Court of Florida 2017, 229 So. 3d 1118)“…tute.” Id. at 880. Rule 1.650 specifically addresses section 766.106, Florida Statutes, and the medical malpractice presuit n…”
- MIAMI PHYSICAL THERAPY v. Savage (District Court of Appeal of Florida 1994, 632 So. 2d 114)“…ng requirements for medical malpractice actions required by section 766.106, Florida Statutes. Defendants moved to dismiss for failur…”
- Welker v. Southern Baptist Hosp. of Florida, Inc. (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2004, 864 So. 2d 1178)“…iring compliance with the presuit screening requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1999); and (3) the impact rule does no…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 766.203Presuit investigation of medical negligence claims and defenses by prospective parties.In force
(1) APPLICATION OF PRESUIT INVESTIGATION.—Presuit investigation of medical negligence claims and defenses pursuant to this section and ss. 766.204-766.206 shall apply to all medical negligence claims and defenses. This shall include:(a) Rights of action under s. 768.19 and defenses thereto. (b) Rights of action involving the state or its agencies or subdivisions, or the officers, employees, or agents thereof, pursuant to s. 768.28 and defenses thereto. (2) PRESUIT INVESTIGATION BY CLAIMANT.—Prior to issuing notification of intent to initiate medical negligence litigation pursuant to s. 766.106, the claimant shall conduct an investigation to ascertain that there are reasonable grounds to believe that:(a) Any named defendant in the litigation was negligent in the care or treatment of the claimant; and (b) Such negligence resulted in injury to the claimant. Corroboration of reasonable grounds to initiate medical negligence litigation shall be provided by the claimant’s submission of a verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert as defined in s.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 41 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Largie v. Gregorian (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2005, 913 So. 2d 635)“…reasonable grounds" for a claim of medical negligence under Section 766.203, Florida Statutes (2000). Section 766.203, Florida Stat…”
- Germ v. St. Luke's Hosp. Ass'n (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2008, 993 So. 2d 576)“…Macksey and McLanahan in the initial action. Pursuant to section 766.203, Florida Statutes (2006), Appellants were required to inv…”
- Royle v. Florida Hosp.-East Orlando (District Court of Appeal of Florida 1996, 679 So. 2d 1209)“…regoing verified written medical expert opinion pursuant to section 766.203, Florida Statutes, and that the facts stated are true to…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 766.118Determination of noneconomic damages.In force
(1) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section, the term:(a) “Catastrophic injury” means a permanent impairment constituted by:1. Spinal cord injury involving severe paralysis of an arm, a leg, or the trunk; 2. Amputation of an arm, a hand, a foot, or a leg involving the effective loss of use of that appendage; 3. Severe brain or closed-head injury as evidenced by:a. Severe sensory or motor disturbances; b. Severe communication disturbances; c. Severe complex integrated disturbances of cerebral function; d. Severe episodic neurological disorders; or e. Other severe brain and closed-head injury conditions at least as severe in nature as any condition provided in sub-subparagraphs a.-d.; 4. Second-degree or third-degree burns of 25 percent or more of the total body surface or third-degree burns of 5 percent or more to the face and hands; 5. Blindness, defined as a complete and total loss of vision; or 6. Loss of reproductive organs which results in an inability to procreate. (b) “Noneconomic damages” means noneconomic damages as defined in s. 766.202(8).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 18 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2017
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Estate of Michelle Evette McCall v. United States (Supreme Court of Florida 2014, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 104)“…oneconomic damages to Michelle’s survivors, as set forth in section 766.118, Florida Statutes. Section 766.118 provides in pertinen…”
- North Broward Hospital District, etc. v. Susan Kalitan (Supreme Court of Florida 2017, 42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 642)“…v. Kalitan, 174 So. 3d 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), which held section 766.118, Florida Statutes (2011), to be invalid. We have jurisdi…”
- North Broward Hospital District v. Kalitan (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2015, 174 So. 3d 403)“…onomic damages awards in wrongful death cases, imposed by section 766.118, Florida Statutes (2005), violated the equal protection c…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 768.81Comparative fault.In forcecited in 7 of our articles
(1) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section, the term:(a) “Accident” means the events and actions that relate to the incident as well as those events and actions that relate to the alleged defect or injuries, including enhanced injuries. (b) “Economic damages” means past lost income and future lost income reduced to present value; medical and funeral expenses; lost support and services; replacement value of lost personal property; loss of appraised fair market value of real property; costs of construction repairs, including labor, overhead, and profit; and any other economic loss that would not have occurred but for the injury giving rise to the cause of action. (c) “Negligence action” means, without limitation, a civil action for damages based upon a theory of negligence, strict liability, products liability, professional malpractice whether couched in terms of contract or tort, or breach of warranty and like theories. The substance of an action, not conclusory terms used by a party, determines whether an action is a negligence action.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 153 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):American Home Assur. v. NAT. RR CORP. (2005) held a vicariously liable party has the active tortfeasor's negligence apportioned to it under section 768.81, reducing its recovery. Wal-Mart Stores v. McDonald (1996) held the statute does not let a negligent defendant shift fault to the intentional actor it had a duty to guard against.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- D'ANGELO v. Fitzmaurice (Supreme Court of Florida 2003, 863 So. 2d 311)✓A pad was left in a patient during an appendectomy; the hospital settled and the surgeon kept it off the verdict form. The court held Section 768.81 applies even with one defendant listed, so he got an economic damages setoff but none for noneconomic damages.
- American Home Assur. v. NAT. RR CORP. (Supreme Court of Florida 2005, 908 So. 2d 459)✓An Amtrak train hit a rig hauling an 82 ton turbine at a crossing; answering a certified question, the court held Section 768.81 cuts a vicariously liable claimant's own recovery by the active tortfeasor's share, since chargeable fault is not limited to direct negligence.
- Wal-Mart Stores v. McDonald (District Court of Appeal of Florida 1996, 676 So. 2d 12)✓McDonald was shot by an unknown assailant in a shopping center parking lot and sued the store and landlord for negligent security; the court held Section 768.81 does not reach intentional criminal conduct, so the assailant was properly kept off the verdict form.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Motorcycle Accident Laws in Florida (2026): Deadlines & Helmets, Florida Slip and Fall Laws: Proving Premises Liability in the Sunshine State, Florida Statute of Limitations: Filing Deadlines by Case Type
§ 768.16Wrongful Death Act.In force
Sections 768.16-768.26 may be cited as the “Florida Wrongful Death Act.”
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 81 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hanley v. Liberty Mutual Insurance (District Court of Appeal of Florida 1975, 323 So. 2d 301)“…idually, under the aegis of new Florida Wrongful Death Act, Fla.Stat. §§ 768.16 et seq. The complaint contains the foll…”
- Gaboury v. Flagler Hospital, Inc. (District Court of Appeal of Florida 1975, 316 So. 2d 642)“…ate of the decedent, under the Florida Wrongful Death Act, Fla. Stat. § 768.16 et seq. (1973). The complaint alleged,…”
- Matthews v. Williford (District Court of Appeal of Florida 1975, 318 So. 2d 480)“…e effective date of the new Florida Wrongful Death statute, Fla. Stat. 768.16-27.…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 766.110Liability of health care facilities.In force
(1) All health care facilities, including hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers, as defined in chapter 395, have a duty to assure comprehensive risk management and the competence of their medical staff and personnel through careful selection and review, and are liable for a failure to exercise due care in fulfilling these duties. These duties shall include, but not be limited to:(a) The adoption of written procedures for the selection of staff members and a periodic review of the medical care and treatment rendered to patients by each member of the medical staff; (b) The adoption of a comprehensive risk management program which fully complies with the substantive requirements of s. 395.0197 as appropriate to such hospital’s size, location, scope of services, physical configuration, and similar relevant factors; (c) The initiation and diligent administration of the medical review and risk management processes established in paragraphs (a) and (b) including the supervision of the medical staff and hospital personnel to the extent necessary to ensure that such medical review and risk management processes are being diligently carried out.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 9 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Burke v. Snyder (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2005, 899 So. 2d 336)“…medical staffs through careful selection and review. See Fla. Stat. § 766.110 (1) (1997). It further provides for lia…”
- Horowitz v. PLANTATION GENERAL HOSP. LTD. (Supreme Court of Florida 2007, 959 So. 2d 176)“…spital's grant of staff privileges. Like section 458.320, section 766.110, Florida Statutes (2006), was enacted as part of the Comp…”
- Notami Hosp. of Florida, Inc. v. Bowen (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2006, 927 So. 2d 139)“…ling, retaining or supervising Dr. Pendrak, in violation of section 766.110, Florida Statutes. Respondents served the Hospital with…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Sources and References
- Fla. Stat. 95.11, two-year medical malpractice limitation, four-year repose, seven-year fraud limit, minor exception(flsenate.gov).gov
- Fla. Stat. 766.106, notice of intent and 90-day pre-suit investigation with tolling(flsenate.gov).gov
- Fla. Stat. 766.203, presuit investigation and corroborating verified written medical expert opinion(flsenate.gov).gov
- Fla. Stat. 766.118, the non-economic damages caps held unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court(flsenate.gov).gov
- Fla. Stat. 768.81, comparative fault and the 50 percent bar that excludes Chapter 766 medical negligence(flsenate.gov).gov
- North Broward Hospital District v. Kalitan, 219 So. 3d 49 (Fla. 2017), non-economic caps unconstitutional(supremecourt.flcourts.gov).gov
- The Florida Bar News: court rules medical malpractice non-economic caps unconstitutional (Kalitan, 2017)(floridabar.org)
- Fla. Stat. 766.110, liability of health care facilities: duty to assure risk management and staff competence through careful selection and review(leg.state.fl.us)
Paid attorney referral. RecordingLaw may receive compensation when you use an attorney-help link. RecordingLaw is not a law firm. Submitting a request does not guarantee that an attorney will accept your case and does not create an attorney-client relationship.