Grek, Estate of George E. Grek v. CL Golden, LLC, Cross Landings Health and Rehabilitation Center
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledJuly 22, 2026
Docket1D2025-1955
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D2025-1955
_____________________________
RENEE GREK, as personal
representative of the Estate of
George E. Grek, on behalf of
surviving spouse, ANNA L. GREK
and his children RENEE L. GREK
and RANDELL L. CONYERS, THE
ESTATE OF GEORGE E. GREK AND
ANNA L. GREK and THE ESTATE
OF GEORGE E. GREK
Individually,
Appellant,
v.
CL GOLDEN, LLC, d/b/a Cross
Landings Health and
Rehabilitation Center also d/b/a
Monticello Care Center, a
Florida Corporation, SHAUN E.
LAURIE, MD, LETICIA DE LA
CRUZ and MARK DANIELS,
Appellees.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Jefferson County.
Dawn Caloca-Johnson, Judge.
July 22, 2026
PER CURIAM.
After George E. Grek’s death, Appellant Renee Grek sued
Appellees as the personal representative of his estate. The
operative complaint asserted claims for negligence, medical
malpractice, nursing home negligence, violations of Florida’s
Nursing Home Residents Bill of Rights, and wrongful death. To
plead compliance with applicable statutory presuit screening
requirements, the complaint alleged that Appellees were served
with notices of intent. It also included counsel’s certification that a
reasonable investigation had been performed, gave rise to
reasonable grounds to support the action, and was supported by a
qualified health care provider’s corroborating affidavit. The
affidavit and notices were not attached to the complaint.
As relevant here, Appellees moved to dismiss on the ground
that the action was barred by the limitations period for COVID-19-
related claims against health care providers. See § 768.381(5), Fla.
Stat. They relied on presuit materials submitted with their
motions. Appellant opposed dismissal, arguing that the operative
complaint did not plead a COVID-19-related claim and that the
trial court could not rely on the presuit materials to conclude
otherwise. The trial court considered those materials, concluded
that Appellant’s claims were COVID-19-related, and dismissed the
third amended complaint with prejudice. It later entered final
judgments.
We review the dismissals de novo. A motion to dismiss tests
the legal sufficiency of the complaint, so the trial court must accept
the complaint’s factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable
inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Toney v. Courtney, 191
So. 3d 505, 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).
The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that
ordinarily must be raised in an answer. Mooshie v. Fla. State Lodge
Fraternal Ord. of Police, 397 So. 3d 1202, 1204 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024).
It may support dismissal only when the complaint or its
attachments conclusively establish the defense. Id.; see also
Williams v. Gaffin Indus. Servs., Inc., 88 So. 3d 1027, 1029 (Fla.
2d DCA 2012). A trial court therefore may not dismiss a complaint
based on an affirmative defense that requires consideration of
2
matters outside the four corners of the complaint. Newberry
Square Fla. Laundromat, LLC v. Jim’s Coin Laundry & Dry
Cleaners, Inc., 296 So. 3d 584, 589 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020).
Here, the limitations defense for COVID-19-related claims
was not apparent, much less conclusively established, on the face
of the complaint. The complaint did not allege that Mr. Grek
contracted COVID-19 or that Appellant’s claims were based on or
related to COVID-19. The affidavit and notices were not attached
to the complaint. And the complaint’s limited reference to those
materials as support for presuit compliance did not incorporate
their contents as substantive allegations establishing Appellees’
limitations defense.
To the extent the dismissals also rested on section 768.381’s
heightened pleading or culpability requirements, the same
reasoning applies. Those requirements apply only to COVID-19-
related claims, and the operative complaint did not plead such a
claim.
Accordingly, we reverse the orders dismissing the third
amended complaint with prejudice, vacate the resulting final
judgments, and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
LEWIS, ROWE, and RAY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Anthony J. Manganiello, III, of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen
& Ginsburg, P.A., Sarasota, for Appellant.
3
Joshua M. Salmon, Christopher M. David, and Michael B.
Kornhauser of Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph, Miami, for
Appellees CL Golden, LLC, and Mark Daniels.
Jason M. Azzarone, Jeffrey M. Goodis, and Andrew R. Hudson of
La Cava, Jacobson & Goodis, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee Shaun E.
Laurie, M.D.
No appearance for Appellee Leticia De La Cruz.
4