The Florida Appeals Court established that a pre-suit investigation expert must have adequate current knowledge of the professional standard of medical care at the time the alleged malpractice occurred.

In 1991, a podiatrist operated on Staci Dingler's foot. After the surgery she developed a lesion on her leg which her doctor attributed to the Betadine solution which seeped under her leg during the surgery. The lesion developed into scar tissue that was excised, leaving a "less than satisfactory" appearance. In March 1993, she filed a malpractice suit against her podiatrist and the hospital.

A Florida statute required that a health-care provider must provide an opinion supporting the attorney's good faith belief alleging medical negligence. Mrs. Dingier presented the opinion of a physician-turned-lawyer that had ceased practicing surgery in 1992 and was no longer licensed as a physician.

The podiatrist and hospital moved to dismiss the lawsuit. They argued that the plaintiff's medical expert failed to meet the statutory requirement of active involvement in the practice of medicine within the five-year period before the occurrence of the incident giving rise to the malpractice claim. The trial court denied the motion.

On appeal, the defendants continued to argue that the statutory requirement must be met at the time the corroborating opinion and affidavit are signed. The Court disagreed, pointing out that the medical malpractice statutory scheme was not designed to unduly restrict a plaintiff's access to the court