We have for review a decision of the Fifth District passing upon the following question certified to be of great public importance:

DOES AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN INJURY SUFFERED BY A NEWBORN INFANT DOES OR DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A “BIRTH-RELATED NEUROLOGICAL INJURY’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FLORIDA BIRTH-RELATED NEUROLOGICAL INJURY COMPENSATION PLAN, SECTIONS 766.301-.316, FLORIDA STATUTES (1993), SO THAT A CIRCUIT COURT IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SPECIFICALLY ALLEGING AN INJURY OUTSIDE THE COVERAGE OF THE PLAN MUST AUTOMATICALLY ABATE THAT ACTION WHEN THE PLAN’S IMMUNITY IS RAISED AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE PENDING A DETERMINATION BY THE HEARING OFFICER AS TO THE EXACT NATURE OF THE INFANT’S INJURY?

See Central Florida Regional Hospital, Inc. v. Wager, 656 So.2d 491, 493-94 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Since we have already answered the identical question in the negative in Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Ass’n v. McKaughan, 668 So.2d 974 (Fla. 1996), the district court decision is approved.

It is so ordered.