rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services.” In addition, the medical negligence or malpractice must have resulted in personal injury or death to the claimant. § 766.104(1) (“No action shall be filed for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of medical negligence ... unless ... there are grounds for a good faith belief that there has been negligence in the care or treatment of the claimant.”). The autopsy performed by Dr. Gordon did not constitute the rendering of medical care or services. And while an autopsy requires the exercise of medical skill and judgment, Ms. Liles’ claim is based on the disposal of her mother’s organs, which does not require medical skill and judgment. See Bell v. Indian River Mem’l Hosp., 778 So.2d 1030, 1034 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (<HOLDING>); Liles v. P.I.A. Medfield, Inc., 681 So.2d
holding that plaintiffs claim that medical providers did not comply with baker act was not subject to medical malpractice statutes ajlthough a medical diagnosis is necessary in order to involuntarily commit a patient the process of complying with the statute does not require medical skill or judgment holding at least under the facts of the case that the statute of limitations in a medical malpractice action did not begin to run until the plaintiff secured a specific medical diagnosis holding that parents claims of outrage and negligent handling of a body were not subject to the medical malpractice statutes because hospital personnel did not engage in any medical skill or judgment in the disposition of the childs remains holding that remand was required due to fact that final judgment of dissolution did not contain any provision addressing status of any medical insurance for parties child or general responsibility for childs medical care holding that evidence of prior similar acts was not proof of medical malpractice or whether the doctor lacked the proper degree of knowledge or skill