and physically abuse Flora until her death approximately 8 weeks later. Memorial asserted numerous grounds to support its motion to dismiss, including that Plaintiff failed to state a cause of action because chapter 415 does not create a private cause of action. Plaintiff did not request leave to amend the complaint to set forth a claim for simple negligence, nor did Plaintiff seek rehearing of the order dismissing this action with prejudice. Clearly, chapter 415, part 1, does not explicitly provide individuals with a private cause of action against those violating the reporting requirement. In order to determine whether a private cause of action should be judicially inferred, the court must look to the legislative intent. See Murthy v. N. Sinha Corp., 644 So.2d 983 (Fla.1994) (<HOLDING>). In Murthy, the supreme court noted that, in
holding that private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by congress courts may not create a cause of action absent statutory intent holding that the medicaid statute did not create an enforceable cause of action against a private health care facility holding that regulatory and penal statutes governing the construction industry did not create a private cause of action against an individual qualifying agent recognizing the cause of action holding that emtala does not provide a private cause of action against individual physicians or against physicians medical corporations