Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1985

Haftel v. Florida Patient's Compensation Fund

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided March 5, 1985 · Baskin, Jorgenson, Schwartz

464 So. 2d 249; 10 Fla. L. Weekly 559; 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12741 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Haftel v. Florida Patient's Compensation Fund (Fla. 1985)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The summary judgment for the Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund, entered because the Fund was joined as a defendant more than two years after the incident in question, is affirmed on the authority of Robison v. Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund, 458 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Fabal v. Florida Keys Memorial Hospital, 452 So.2d 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Lugo v. Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund, 452 So.2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); and Taddiken v. Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund, 449 So.2d 956 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). We again certify that this decision involves a question of great public importance1 and is in direct conflict with Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Tillman, 453 So.2d 1376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

Affirmed.

. “Whether a claim against the Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund arises at the time of the alleged medical malpractice, rather than when judgment is entered against the tortfeasor, and is governed by the two year statute of limitations provided by Section 95.-11(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1977), so that the Fund must be made or joined as a party defendant within two years after the malpractice action accrues?"

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.