Smelko v. Dupay

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Smelko v. Dupay

686 So. 2d 14, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6038, 1996 WL 303425

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 7, 1996

DocketNo. 95-02900

StatusPublished

This text of 686 So. 2d 14 (Smelko v. Dupay) 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

Smelko v. Dupay, 686 So. 2d 14, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6038, 1996 WL 303425 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PATTERSON, Judge.

L. Addison Smelko appeals from the final order which dismisses his lawsuit against Dr. Edward R. Dupay, Jr., and Edward R. Du-pay, Jr., D.O., P.A, for failure to comply with the medical malpractice statute’s pre-suit screening requirements. See § 766.203, Fla. Stat. (1993). The trial court determined that the plaintiffs medical expert, Dr. Gardner, was not a qualified medical expert under section 766.202(5), Florida Statutes (1993). Because the statute of limitations has run, the case is time barred.

In Faber v. Wrobel, 673 So.2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), this court determined that Dr. Gardner is in fact a qualified medical expert for the purposes of section 766.202(5). Therefore, we reverse and remand with directions to reinstate the plaintiffs complaint.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

PARKER, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.

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

PATTERSON, Judge.

L. Addison Smelko appeals from the final order which dismisses his lawsuit against Dr. Edward R. Dupay, Jr., and Edward R. Du-pay, Jr., D.O., P.A, for failure to comply with the medical malpractice statute’s pre-suit screening requirements. See § 766.203, Fla. Stat. (1993). The trial court determined that the plaintiffs medical expert, Dr. Gardner, was not a qualified medical expert under section 766.202(5), Florida Statutes (1993). Because the statute of limitations has run, the case is time barred.

In Faber v. Wrobel, 673 So.2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), this court determined that Dr. Gardner is in fact a qualified medical expert for the purposes of section 766.202(5). Therefore, we reverse and remand with directions to reinstate the plaintiffs complaint.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

PARKER, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

686 So. 2d 14, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6038, 1996 WL 303425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smelko-v-dupay-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack