Berry v. Orr, 88-1569
| Decision Date | 01 November 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-1569,88-1569 |
| Citation | 537 So.2d 1014,13 Fla. L. Weekly 2439 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2439 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. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kimbrell & Hamann and James F. Asher and Virginia Forbes, Miami, for petitioner.
Ligman, Martin, Shiley, Neswiacheny & Evans and Gordon Evans, Coral Gables, Robert A. Ginsburg, County Atty. and Roy Wood, Asst. County Atty., for respondents.
Before HUBBART, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
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 Bendeck, 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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Solimando v. International Medical Centers, H.M.O.
...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 Pearlstein I in support of their position. These authorities do ......
-
Fass v. Coralluzzo By and Through Coralluzzo, s. 89-166
...Miami, for appellees. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and JORGENSON, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See and compare Berry v. Orr, 537 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), rev. denied, 545 So.2d 1368 (Fla.1989); MacDonald v. McIver, 514 So.2d 1151, 1152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); City of Hialeah v. Rehm, ......
-
Ingersoll v. Hoffman
...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 768.4......
-
Campagnulo v. Williams
...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.......