
    Henry and Donna MOGLER, Individually, and as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Michael Mogler, Deceased, Appellants, v. Dirk FRANZEN, M.D., and Dirk Franzen, M.D., P.A., Appellees.
    No. 95-0308.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Nov. 8, 1995.
    Opinion on Denial of Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc March 13,1996.
    
      Joe Reiter of Lytal & Reiter, P.A., and Jane Kreusler-Walsh of Jane Kreusler-Walsh, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellants.
    Armando T. Lauritano of Bobo, Spicer, Ciotoli, Fulford, Bocchino, Debevois & Le Clainche, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appel-lees.
   PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a final summary judgment raises the primary issue of whether declaratory relief is available to parties who have agreed to arbitrate medical malpractice damages but disagree regarding the recover-ability of one element of the damages claimed. The trial court found that it had jurisdiction and granted declaratory relief. We disagree and reverse.

Henry and Donna Mogler made a claim against Dr. Dirk Franzen and his P.A. for medical malpractice arising from his treatment of their son, Michael. Michael died on February 16, 1993, as a result of Dr. Franzen’s malpractice. The Moglers mailed a notice of intent to initiate a malpractice action to Dr. Franzen and his P.A. Dr. Franzen’s insurer responded and offered to admit liability under section 766.106(3)(b)3, Florida Statutes (1993), and to submit the issue of damages to voluntary binding arbitration under section 766.207, Florida Statutes (1993). The offer was not made contingent upon a limit of general damages as permitted by the statute. The Moglers accepted the offer of liability and agreed to arbitration.

During arbitration discovery, a dispute arose between the parties as to what damages were recoverable in the upcoming arbitration proceeding. Dr. Franzen and his P.A. filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Martin County seeking declaratory relief as to whether the costs of psychiatric care and treatment for the parents of a deceased child were recoverable elements of economic damages. Dr. Franzen and his P.A. argued these damages were precluded under section 768.18, Florida Statutes (1993), the Wrongful Death Act, as interpreted in Wade v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 510 So.2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), and that since the Moglers’ claim was for the wrongful death of their son, Michael, damages which would be unrecoverable had the case proceeded through jury trial should not become recoverable because the parties agreed to arbitration.

The Moglers moved to dismiss the declaratory relief action on the grounds that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the complaint since the parties had agreed to arbitration and because the limitation of damages as applied in Wade v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. does not apply to medical malpractice proceedings. The trial court denied the Moglers’ motion to dismiss.

Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court entered final summary judgment, finding that it had jurisdiction over, the plaintiffs’ declaratory relief action, and that the cost of the Moglers’ psychiatric treatment and care was not a recoverable element of damages.

The parties agreed to determine damages in voluntary binding arbitration. By agreeing to binding arbitration, the parties gave the arbitrators sole authority to determine their recoverable damages and waived the right to challenge the arbitrator’s award of damages, even if the arbitrators made an error of law. Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So.2d 1327 (Fla.1989); J.J.F. of Palm Beach, Inc. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 634 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Therefore, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain this declaratory relief action.

Because we have determined that the trial court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter, we do not decide the damages issue.

Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded for entry of an order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

STONE and FARMER, JJ., and STREITFELD, JEFFREY E., Associate Judge, concur.

OPINION ON REHEARING, CLARIFICATION, REHEARING EN BANC AND CERTIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

Two new matters have been'raised in ap-pellees’ post-decision motion. Appellees for the first time assert, and appellants agree, that the appellees’ offer to arbitrate was made contingent upon the limit of general damages provided in section 766.207, Florida Statutes (1993). The parties acknowledge that a factual error exists in their briefs. This factual correction does not affect our opinion.

Appellees also raise, for the first time, the argument that because an arbitration award under the Medical Malpractice Act is subject to judicial review pursuant to sections 766.212(1) and 120.68, Florida Statutes (1993), declaratory relief should be available prior to the arbitration award. We disagree.

Other than stated herein, appellees’ Motion for Rehearing, Clarification, for Rehearing En Banc, and for Certification is denied.

STONE and FARMER, JJ., and STREITFELD, JEFFREY E., Associate Judge, concur.  