Armus v. Kuttler

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Armus v. Kuttler

578 So. 2d 835, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3906, 1991 WL 65954

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 30, 1991

DocketNo. 90-2586

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 578 So. 2d 835 (Armus v. Kuttler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armus v. Kuttler, 578 So. 2d 835, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3906, 1991 WL 65954 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Paul Armus’s appeal from a final summary judgment in favor of Miles Kuttler, D.M.D., and Miles Kuttler, P.A., [collectively Dr. Kuttler] is based on the trial court’s ruling that statute of limitations bars his dental malpractice action. We affirm.

Dr. Kuttler treated Mr. Armus from January 1978 until December 1986. In November 1986, Mr. Armus visited Dr. Kutt-ler for treatment of a problem with his bridge work. Dr. Kuttler referred Mr. Ar-mus to Dr. Singer, a periodontist. In February 1987, Mr. Armus sought a second opinion from Dr. Pearlman. Dr. Pearlman diagnosed Mr. Armus as having extensive periodontal disease with local advanced per-iodontitis. Thereafter, Mr. Armus served Dr. Kuttler with a notice of intent to initiate a dental malpractice action in May 1989. In August 1989, Mr. Armus filed an action against Dr. Kuttler alleging that his failure to evaluate and diagnose periodontal disease aggravated his condition. Dr. Kuttler sought summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. The trial court ruled that the statute of limitations had run prior to the filing of the action and entered the final summary judgment under review.

Section 95.11(4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986), provides, in pertinent part, that an action for dental malpractice must be commenced “within 2 years from the time the incident giving rise to the action occurred or within 2 years from the time the incident is discovered, or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence....” The statute of limitations begins to run “when the plaintiff should have known of either (1) the injury or (2) the negligent act.” University of Miami v. Bogorff 16 F.L.W. 149, 150 (Fla. Jan. 18, 1991); Barron v. Shapiro, 565 So.2d 1319 (Fla.1990); Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla.1985); Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So.2d 25 (Fla.1976). Mr. Armus’ deposition testimony conclusively demonstrates that he was [836]*836aware of Dr. Kuttler’s alleged negligent treatment in February 1987, more than two years before he took appropriate action. Thus, the trial court correctly ruled that defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Bogorff.

Accordingly, we affirm the final summary judgment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Paul Armus’s appeal from a final summary judgment in favor of Miles Kuttler, D.M.D., and Miles Kuttler, P.A., [collectively Dr. Kuttler] is based on the trial court’s ruling that statute of limitations bars his dental malpractice action. We affirm.

Dr. Kuttler treated Mr. Armus from January 1978 until December 1986. In November 1986, Mr. Armus visited Dr. Kutt-ler for treatment of a problem with his bridge work. Dr. Kuttler referred Mr. Ar-mus to Dr. Singer, a periodontist. In February 1987, Mr. Armus sought a second opinion from Dr. Pearlman. Dr. Pearlman diagnosed Mr. Armus as having extensive periodontal disease with local advanced per-iodontitis. Thereafter, Mr. Armus served Dr. Kuttler with a notice of intent to initiate a dental malpractice action in May 1989. In August 1989, Mr. Armus filed an action against Dr. Kuttler alleging that his failure to evaluate and diagnose periodontal disease aggravated his condition. Dr. Kuttler sought summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. The trial court ruled that the statute of limitations had run prior to the filing of the action and entered the final summary judgment under review.

Section 95.11(4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986), provides, in pertinent part, that an action for dental malpractice must be commenced “within 2 years from the time the incident giving rise to the action occurred or within 2 years from the time the incident is discovered, or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence....” The statute of limitations begins to run “when the plaintiff should have known of either (1) the injury or (2) the negligent act.” University of Miami v. Bogorff 16 F.L.W. 149, 150 (Fla. Jan. 18, 1991); Barron v. Shapiro, 565 So.2d 1319 (Fla.1990); Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla.1985); Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So.2d 25 (Fla.1976). Mr. Armus’ deposition testimony conclusively demonstrates that he was [836]*836aware of Dr. Kuttler’s alleged negligent treatment in February 1987, more than two years before he took appropriate action. Thus, the trial court correctly ruled that defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Bogorff.

Accordingly, we affirm the final summary judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

578 So. 2d 835, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3906, 1991 WL 65954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armus-v-kuttler-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack