Grek v. CL Golden — Reversed dismissal of estate’s claims based on outside-the-complaint materials

Case
Renee Grek, as Personal Representative of the Estate of George E. Grek, et al. v. CL Golden, LLC, d/b/a Cross Landings Health and Rehabilitation Center, et al.
Court
Florida First District Court of Appeal
Judge
LEWIS (Jeb Bush, 2001); Rowe (Charlie Crist, 2009)
Date Decided
July 22, 2026
Docket No.
1D2025-1955
Topics
COVID-19 Claims, Statute of Limitations, Motions to Dismiss, Nursing Home Litigation
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

After George E. Grek’s death, Renee Grek, acting as personal representative of his estate, sued a nursing home and several individual defendants. The third amended complaint asserted negligence, medical malpractice, nursing home negligence, violations of Florida’s Nursing Home Residents Bill of Rights, and wrongful-death claims. It alleged compliance with statutory presuit screening requirements but did not attach the notices of intent or the supporting health care provider’s affidavit.

The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the action was barred by the limitations period governing COVID-19-related claims against health care providers under section 768.381(5), Florida Statutes. Relying on presuit materials submitted with the motions, the circuit court determined that the claims were COVID-19-related, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and entered final judgments.

The Court’s Holding

The First District reversed. It explained that a statute-of-limitations defense ordinarily must be raised in an answer and may justify dismissal only when the complaint and its attachments conclusively establish the defense. Because a motion to dismiss tests the complaint’s legal sufficiency, a court generally may not resolve an affirmative defense by considering material outside the complaint’s four corners.

The complaint did not allege that George Grek contracted COVID-19 or that the asserted claims were based on or related to COVID-19. Its limited references to the presuit notices and affidavit for purposes of alleging procedural compliance did not incorporate those materials’ contents as substantive allegations. The complaint therefore did not conclusively establish the COVID-19 limitations defense or trigger section 768.381’s heightened pleading and culpability requirements. The appellate court vacated the final judgments and remanded for further proceedings.

Key Takeaways

  • A statute-of-limitations defense supports dismissal only when the complaint or its attachments conclusively establish the defense.
  • A court may not use unattached presuit materials to classify a claim as COVID-19-related at the motion-to-dismiss stage merely because the complaint references those materials to allege presuit compliance.
  • Section 768.381’s special limitations, pleading, and culpability provisions apply only to COVID-19-related claims, and the operative complaint did not plead such a claim.

Why It Matters

The decision reinforces Florida’s four-corners rule at the pleading stage. Defendants cannot obtain dismissal on an affirmative defense by supplying external materials when the defense is not conclusively established by the complaint and its attachments.

The ruling does not determine whether the estate’s claims are ultimately COVID-19-related or timely. It holds only that those issues could not be resolved on these motions to dismiss, allowing the litigation to continue on remand.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top