The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XLV
TORTS

Chapter 766
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND RELATED MATTERS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 766.208

766.208 Arbitration to allocate responsibility among multiple defendants.—

(1) The provisions of this section shall apply when more than one defendant has participated in voluntary binding arbitration pursuant to s. 766.207.

(2) Within 20 days after the determination of damages by the arbitration panel in the first arbitration proceeding, those defendants who have agreed to voluntary binding arbitration shall submit any dispute among them regarding the apportionment of financial responsibility to a separate binding arbitration proceeding. Such proceeding shall be with a panel of three arbitrators, which panel shall consist of the administrative law judge who presided in the first arbitration proceeding, who shall serve as the chief arbitrator, and two medical practitioners appointed by the defendants, except that if a hospital licensed pursuant to chapter 395 is involved in the arbitration proceeding, one arbitrator appointed by the defendants shall be a certified hospital risk manager. In the event the defendants cannot agree on their selection of arbitrators within 20 days after the determination of damages by the arbitration panel in the first arbitration proceeding, a list of not more than five nominees shall be submitted by each defendant to the director of the Division of Administrative Hearings, who shall select the other arbitrators but shall not select more than one from the list of nominees of any defendant.

(3) The administrative law judge appointed to serve as the chief arbitrator shall convene the arbitrators for the purpose of determining allocation of responsibility among multiple defendants within 65 days after the determination of damages by the arbitration panel in the first arbitration proceeding.

(4) The arbitration panel shall allocate financial responsibility among all defendants named in the notice of intent to initiate litigation, regardless of whether the defendant has submitted to arbitration. The defendants in the arbitration proceeding shall pay their proportionate share of the economic and noneconomic damages awarded by the arbitration panel. All defendants in the arbitration proceeding shall be jointly and severally liable for any damages assessed in arbitration. The determination of the percentage of fault of any defendant not in the arbitration case shall not be binding against that defendant, nor shall it be admissible in any subsequent legal proceeding.

(5) Payment by the defendants of the damages awarded by the arbitration panel in the first arbitration proceeding shall extinguish those defendants’ liability to the claimant and shall also extinguish those defendants’ liability for contribution to any defendants who did not participate in arbitration.

(6) Any defendant paying damages assessed pursuant to this section or s. 766.207 shall have an action for contribution against any nonarbitrating person whose negligence contributed to the injury.

History.—s. 55, ch. 88-1; s. 31, ch. 88-277; s. 305, ch. 96-410.

F.S. 766.208 on Google Scholar

F.S. 766.208 on Casetext

Amendments to 766.208

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 766.208

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 766.208.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

FRANKS, v. BOWERS, M. D., 116 So. 3d 1240 (Fla. 2013)

. . . The MMA provides, in relevant part: (1) Voluntary binding arbitration pursuant to this section and ss.766.208 . . .

C. RELL, D. P. M. P. A. v. McCULLA, 101 So. 3d 878 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Because the requirements of section 766.208(2) were not met, the trial court departed from the essential . . .

GALENCARE, INC. d b a A. G. n k a S. E. HCA, v. MOSLEY,, 59 So. 3d 138 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . “After completion of presuit investigation pursuant to s. 766.208(2) and prior to filing a complaint . . .

HOLMES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. WIRTH, 49 So. 3d 802 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . . § 766.208(2). . . .

HOLDEN, v. BOBER, M. D. Gu, M. D. W. M. D. P. A. d b a d b a, 39 So. 3d 396 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . emergency department physician, cannot be considered a valid written medical expert opinion under section 766.208 . . .

JACKSON, v. J. MORILLO, M. D., 976 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . judgment asserted that Jackson failed to comply with the pre-suit investigation requirements of section 766.208 . . .

CHESTER, v. DOIG, M. D., 842 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 2003)

. . . We also note, reading further into the statutory scheme, that section 766.208(6), Florida Statutes (1997 . . .

INTEGRATED HEALTH CARE SERVICES, INC. v. LANG- REDWAY,, 840 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 2002)

. . . Pursuant to section 766.208(1), presuit investigation requirements apply to all medical negligence claims . . .

MINCEY, v. MOORE,, 814 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . See sec. 766.208, Fla. Stat. (1999). We reverse. . . .

ST. MARY S HOSPITAL, INC. v. PHILLIPE, v. St. s M. D. v. E. E. v. M. D., 769 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 2000)

. . . to the claimant; or (b) Submit any dispute among multiple defendants to arbitration pursuant to s. 766.208 . . .

ROYLE v. FLORIDA HOSPITAL- EAST ORLANDO, R. D. O., 679 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . and was not accompanied by a corroborating “verified medical expert opinion” as required by section 766.208 . . .

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, d b a a v. ECHARTE, a ECHARTE, 585 So. 2d 293 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . .— (1) Voluntary binding arbitration pursuant to this section and ss. 766.208-766.212 shall not apply . . .