Cases from cite.case.law:

L. MORRIS, v. S. MUNIZ, M. D., 252 So. 3d 1143 (Fla. 2018)

. . . with the informal presuit discovery process for medical malpractice claims in violation of section 766.205 . . . Stat. (2011) ; see id. § 766.205(1). I. . . . Section 766.205, Florida Statutes (2011) Section 766.205(1) requires that, after the completion of the . . . Id. § 766.205(2). B. . . . Thompson's qualifications warranted dismissal under section 766.205(2). Morris , 189 So.3d at 351. . . .

L. MORRIS, S. v. S. MUNIZ, M. D. OB GYN d b a G. M. D., 189 So. 3d 348 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . failed to provide reasonable access to information during pre-suit investigation pursuant to section 766.205 . . . presuit “shall be grounds for dismissal of any applicable claim or defense ultimately asserted.” § 766.205 . . . cooperation with appellees’ attempts to verify the expert’s qualifications merited dismissal under sections 766.205 . . .

SCALICE, v. ORLANDO REGIONAL HEALTHCARE,, 120 So. 3d 215 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . appeal, two of which merit discussion and reversal— whether the trial court properly interpreted section 766.205 . . . The trial court refused to consider the Estate’s pre-suit affidavits based on section 766.205(4), which . . . The plain language of section 766.205(4) only precludes “the opposing party” from admitting pre-suit . . . Clearly, that use is prohibited by section 766.205(4). . . .

BERY, v. FAHEL, D. O., 88 So. 3d 236 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . a subsequent hearing, the plaintiffs’ counsel objected on the basis of privilege, citing to section 766.205 . . . Khilnani pursuant to section 766.205(4). . . . As section 766.205(4) merely pertains to the dis-coverability or admissibility of any "statement, discussion . . .

VARIETY CHILDREN S HOSPITAL d b a s v. BOICE, 27 So. 3d 788 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Because of the clear and unambiguous language of section 766.205(4), which provides that “[n]o statement . . . would be public record, and, if not quashed, violative of the confidentiality privilege of section 766.205 . . . Because any deviation from the clear and unambiguous language of section 766.205(4) would contravene . . .

KANAAN, M. D. v. D. OSBORNE,, 950 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . which compelled him to provide notes that he, claims are exempt from discovery pursuant to section 766.205 . . . Section 766.205(4) provides, “No statement, discussion, written document, report, or other work product . . .

E. MICHAEL, S. v. MEDICAL STAFFING NETWORK, INC. d b a R. N., 947 So. 2d 614 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Further, section 766.205(1) refers to the requirement of an investigation “corroborated by medical expert . . . opinion that there exist reasonable grounds for a claim of negligent injury.” § 766.205(1), Fla. . . .

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, v. WILSON,, 948 So. 2d 774 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 766.205(2), Fla. . . .

LARGIE v. GREGORIAN, M. D. M. D. P. A. A. R. N. P. C. M. D. M. D. P. A., 913 So. 2d 635 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . And § 766.205(1) specifically provides that the medical opinion need only corroborate that “there exists . . .

APOSTOLICO, v. ORLANDO REGIONAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, INC., 871 So. 2d 283 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . See §§ 766.203(2), 766.205(5), Fla. Stat. (2002). . . .

VINCENT, v. A. KAUFMAN, M. D., 855 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . court dismissed Vincent’s case with prejudice on the grounds that dismissal was mandatory under section 766.205 . . . Section 766.205, Florida Statutes (2001), provides: (1) Upon the completion of presuit investigation . . .

COLUMBIA JFK MEDICAL CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, d b a JFK v. BROWN M. D. M. D. P. A., 805 So. 2d 28 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . . § 766.203; see also § 766.205(1). . . .

S. TORREY, v. LEESBURG REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,, 796 So. 2d 544 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Section 766.205(2), Florida Statutes (emphasis added). . . .

N. P. NOLAN, M. D. v. TURNER, 737 So. 2d 579 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . defendants for failure to participate in informal discovery as required by sections 766.106(6) and 766.205 . . .

J. COHEN, M. D. v. DAUPHINEE,, 739 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1999)

. . . Section 766.205(4), which is virtually identical to section 766.106(5), was also added at that time. . . . intended section 766.205(4), rather than section 766.106(5), to apply to the affidavit attached to the . . . However, since the language of section 766.106(5) is virtually identical to that of section 766.205(4 . . . Finally, we emphasize that the clear and unambiguous language of section 766.205(4) provides that “[n . . . This protection is identical to that which is provided in section 766.205(4). . . . Section 766.205(4), Florida Statutes (1995), expressly provides: No statement, discussion, written document . . . Thus, section 766.205(4), Florida Statutes, provides an immunity from discovery or admission into evidence . . . The statutory reference to “other work product” in section 766.205(4) demonstrates that the statements . . . If the Legislature intended the language in section 766.106(5) and 766.205(4) to be all-encompassing, . . . This language lends further support that the language in sections 766.106(5) and 766.205(4) only talks . . .

CLARK, v. SARASOTA COUNTY PUBLIC HOSPITAL BOARD, d b a, 65 F. Supp. 2d 1308 (M.D. Fla. 1998)

. . . The presuit discovery process permitted by §§ 766.106(7) and 766.205, Florida Statutes do not allow for . . .

OTTO v. J. J. RODRIGUEZ, M. D., 710 So. 2d 1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Statutes, which prevented the plaintiffs from obtaining a medical affidavit as required under section 766.205 . . . November 2, 1995, but did not file an affidavit of corroborating medical opinion as required by section 766.205 . . .

PAULK v. NATIONAL MEDICAL ENTERPRISES INC. NME, 679 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . discovery provisions apply to cases in which there are grounds for a “claim of negligent injury,” § 766.205 . . .

KUKRAL v. D. MEKRAS, M. D. Dr. T. d b a, 679 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1996)

. . . .” § 766.205(1), Fla.Stat. (1995). . . . And § 766.205(1) specifically provides that the medical opinion need only corroborate that “there exists . . .

J. KARR, D. D. S. J. D. D. S. P. A. v. SELLERS,, 668 So. 2d 629 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Similarly, in section 766.205(2), which is not applicable here either, the legislature authorized “dismissal . . .

DAVIS, a v. ORLANDO REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,, 654 So. 2d 664 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . And § 766.205(1) specifically provides that the medical opinion need only corroborate that “there exists . . . corroborating expert opinion identify every possible instance of medical negligence. § 766.203; see also § 766.205 . . .

WATKINS, v. ROSENTHAL, M. D. M. D. P. A., 637 So. 2d 993 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . Section 766.205(4), Florida Statutes (1993), provides: “No statement, discussion, written document, report . . . Therefore, the deposition would violate section 766.205(4), which provides no exception to the discovery . . .

WILKINSON, v. E. GOLDEN, Jr. D. D. S., 630 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . . § 766.205. . . . A party’s lack of good faith cooperation in the informal discovery may result in sanctions. § 766.205 . . . Golden relied on sections 766.204 and 766.205 in his motion to dismiss; both were cited in the trial . . . Section 766.205 provides specifically that the duty of informal discovery begins after notice of intent . . .

WHEALTON, v. L. MARSHALL, M. D. B. Jr. M. D. R. M. D. M. D. M. D. M. D. HCA d b a HCA St. a L. M. D. H. M. D. H. M. D. D. M. D. E. M. D. d b a AMI a a, 631 So. 2d 323 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . argues that the documents are protected from discovery under the presuit investigation statute, section 766.205 . . . Section 766.205(4) provides in pertinent part: No statement, discussion, written document, report, or . . . As a result, the expert’s summary notes are not discoverable by the opposing party under section 766.205 . . . memorandum was not “generated solely by the presuit investigation process” within the meaning of section 766.205 . . . question are neither discoverable nor admissible in court by the opposing party, as set forth in section 766.205 . . .

D. KOZEL, v. D. OSTENDORF, D. P. M., 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993)

. . . grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action and that Kozel failed to comply with section 766.205 . . .

RAGOONANAN, a By RAGOONANAN E. E. v. ASSOCIATES IN OBSTETRICS GYNECOLOGY K. K. M. D. F. II, M. D. P. M. D. M. D. d b a, 619 So. 2d 482 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . that the Ra-goonanans failed to cooperate in good faith with presuit discovery, as required by section 766.205 . . .

WILLIAMS v. W. POWERS,, 619 So. 2d 980 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Section 766.205(4) provides: (4) No statement, discussion, written document, report, or other work product . . .

M. DUFFY, M. D. v. BROOKER,, 614 So. 2d 539 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . .-204-766.205 provide for informal presuit discovery and require each party to provide the other with . . .

STEBILLA v. J. MUSSALLEM, M. D., 595 So. 2d 136 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . section 95.11, were subject to dismissal pursuant to section 52(2), Chapter 88-1, now codified as section 766.205 . . . corroboration altogether pursuant to the provisions of section 52(3), Chapter 88-1, now codified as section 766.205 . . . statutes did not waive the requirement of a written medical corroboration pursuant to what is now section 766.205 . . . Section 766.205(1) refers to the fact that the notice of intent is to be “corroborated by” a medical . . . And § 766.205(1) specifically provides that the medical opinion need only corroborate that “there exists . . .