The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XXXII
REGULATION OF PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS

Chapter 456
HEALTH PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS: GENERAL PROVISIONS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 456.50

456.50 Repeated medical malpractice.—

(1) For purposes of s. 26, Art. X of the State Constitution and ss. 458.331(1)(t), (4), and (5) and 459.015(1)(x), (4), and (5):

(a) “Board” means the Board of Medicine, in the case of a physician licensed pursuant to chapter 458, or the Board of Osteopathic Medicine, in the case of an osteopathic physician licensed pursuant to chapter 459.

(b) “Final administrative agency decision” means a final order of the licensing board following a hearing as provided in s. 120.57(1) or (2) or s. 120.574 finding that the licensee has violated s. 458.331(1)(t) or s. 459.015(1)(x).

(c) “Found to have committed” means the malpractice has been found in a final judgment of a court of law, final administrative agency decision, or decision of binding arbitration.

(d) “Incident” means the wrongful act or occurrence from which the medical malpractice arises, regardless of the number of claimants or findings. For purposes of this section:

1. A single act of medical malpractice, regardless of the number of claimants, shall count as only one incident.

2. Multiple findings of medical malpractice arising from the same wrongful act or series of wrongful acts associated with the treatment of the same patient shall count as only one incident.

(e) “Level of care, skill, and treatment recognized in general law related to health care licensure” means the standard of care specified in s. 766.102.

(f) “Medical doctor” means a physician licensed pursuant to chapter 458 or chapter 459.

(g) “Medical malpractice” means the failure to practice medicine in accordance with the level of care, skill, and treatment recognized in general law related to health care licensure. Only for the purpose of finding repeated medical malpractice pursuant to this section, any similar wrongful act, neglect, or default committed in another state or country which, if committed in this state, would have been considered medical malpractice as defined in this paragraph, shall be considered medical malpractice if the standard of care and burden of proof applied in the other state or country equaled or exceeded that used in this state.

(h) “Repeated medical malpractice” means three or more incidents of medical malpractice found to have been committed by a medical doctor. Only an incident occurring on or after November 2, 2004, shall be considered an incident for purposes of finding repeated medical malpractice under this section.

(2) For purposes of implementing s. 26, Art. X of the State Constitution, the board shall not license or continue to license a medical doctor found to have committed repeated medical malpractice, the finding of which was based upon clear and convincing evidence. In order to rely on an incident of medical malpractice to determine whether a license must be denied or revoked under this section, if the facts supporting the finding of the incident of medical malpractice were determined on a standard less stringent than clear and convincing evidence, the board shall review the record of the case and determine whether the finding would be supported under a standard of clear and convincing evidence. Section 456.073 applies. The board may verify on a biennial basis an out-of-state licensee’s medical malpractice history using federal, state, or other databases. The board may require licensees and applicants for licensure to provide a copy of the record of the trial of any medical malpractice judgment, which may be required to be in an electronic format, involving an incident that occurred on or after November 2, 2004. For purposes of implementing s. 26, Art. X of the State Constitution, the 90-day requirement for granting or denying a complete allopathic or osteopathic licensure application in s. 120.60(1) is extended to 180 days.

History.—s. 2, ch. 2005-266.

F.S. 456.50 on Google Scholar

F.S. 456.50 on Casetext

Amendments to 456.50

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 456.50

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 456.50.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

M. SAFIRSTEIN, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE,, 271 So. 3d 1178 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . 2012) (subjecting a licensee to discipline for committing medical malpractice as defined in section 456.50 . . .

BARK, a v. NORTHROP, Mt. a v. RLK, 300 F.R.D. 486 (D. Or. 2014)

. . . awarded at $218 per hour ($1,656.80 total), 3.2 hours of Sampo’s time is awarded at $142.66 per hour ($456.50 . . .

DAVIS FAMILY DAY CARE HOME, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,, 117 So. 3d 464 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . See, e.g., §§ 456.50(2); 459.015(3), Fla. Stat. (2010). . . .

ZHEJIANG DUNAN HETIAN METAL CO. LTD. v. UNITED STATES,, 707 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2010)

. . . Kgs) (Rupees) Sri Lanka_44,720 7,990,000 178.67 Malaysia_24,262 8,031,000 331.01 UAE_8,000 3,652,000 456.50 . . .

In S. DILORETO,, 388 B.R. 637 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2008)

. . . Diloreto concedes that $456.50 of time entries found in exhibit 25 are not com-pensable, that only $26,411.50 . . .

JENSEN, v. LAWLER, a DOES, 338 F. Supp. 2d 739 (S.D. Tex. 2004)

. . . Lorich ($456.50), Thompkins ($507.20), Dr. Schwartz ($239.25), Dr. Tauber ($381.50), Dr. . . .

ELKINS, v. ST. LUKE S HOSPITAL,, 427 F. Supp. 868 (E.D. Mo. 1977)

. . . On June 23, 1974, plaintiff’s salary was increased to $456.50 per month. 5) Plaintiff had no medical . . .

KOENIG, v. FRANK S PLASTERING COMPANY, a BRUGGEMAN, v. FRANK S PLASTERING COMPANY, a LANE, O. v. BRUGGEMAN, R. PROKOP, v. BRUGGEMAN,, 227 F. Supp. 849 (D. Neb. 1964)

. . . that the fair and reasonable value of the service was $830.00 with the jury returning a verdict of $456.50 . . .

J. M. v. J. v. M. v., 28 T.C. 1228 (T.C. 1957)

. . . Of the said $37,-456.50, it is his claim that $23,297.98, representing the proceeds of 22 checks cashed . . .

WEBSTER v. MALONEY LUCAS v. MALONEY BROWN v. MALONEY, 114 F. Supp. 726 (D.N.J. 1953)

. . . Webster Federal 3,262.65 3,262.66 3,262.66 State 456.49 456.49 456.50 $25,325.88 Total $25,325.88 $25,325.87 . . .

THE GEORGE VICKERS. KABLE v. UNITED STATES, 77 F. Supp. 519 (S.D.N.Y. 1948)

. . . periods of his hospitalization and transportation on steamer back to the United States, amounts to $456.50 . . .

J. H. v., 137 Fla. 438 (Fla. 1939)

. . . McDonald jointly preparing a false invoice against the School Board of Escambia County for the sum of $456.50 . . . High School 456.50 “Assignment accepted on part of Board Pub. Inst. “(Signed) J. H. Varnum, Supt.” . . . This record did not show an invoice in the sum of $456.50, which is the basis of this prosecution. . . .

WINDING GULF COLLIERY CO. v. BRAST SUPERIOR POCAHONTAS COAL CO. v. SAME, 13 F. Supp. 743 (W.D. Va. 1936)

. . . mine machines, $8,-250.00; mine locomotives, $23,159.41; automobiles and trucks, $786.00; car puller, $456.50 . . . deductions set out in the claim for refund, are as follows: Automobile and trucks, $786.00; car puller, $456.50 . . .