NORTH FLORIDA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, INC., ALSO KNOWN AS NORTH FLORIDA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, AND PARTHENON INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONERS,
v.
NINA ANN DOUGLAS AND RALPH J. DOUGLAS, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court upheld a trial judge's order compelling a hospital to produce employment and personnel records of nurses involved in a chemotherapy administration negligence case, rejecting the hospital's argument that the records were protected from discovery. The court held that the hospital lacked standing to assert privacy rights on behalf of the nurses and that relevant personnel files are discoverable absent an applicable privilege.
The hospital lacks standing to assert the privacy rights of its nurses based solely on an employee-employer relationship, and employment and personnel files of nurses are discoverable in negligence litigation absent an applicable privilege such as protection for committee evaluations under Florida Statute § 768.40.
[1] A trial court's orders relating to the scope of discovery are within its discretion and should not be overturned absent a departure from the essential requirements of law…
[2] An employer generally lacks standing to assert the privacy rights of its employees.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Orders relating to the scope of discovery are within the wide discretion of the trial court and should not be overturned absent departure from the essential requirements of law.”
Establishes the standard of review for discovery orders—trial courts have broad discretion in discovery matters.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNina Douglas sued North Florida Regional Hospital for negligent administration of chemotherapy. The Douglases also sued a treating physician and anoth…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Admissible Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Nina and Ralph Douglas sued North Florida Regional Hospital alleging negligent administration of chemotherapy to Nina. In a separate suit, the Douglases also sued a treating physician and Gaines-ville Obstetrics and Gynecology, P.A., alleging malpractice. In both cases, the Douglases sought discovery of the employment and personnel records of four nurses employed by the hospital and allegedly involved in the accident.
The defendants objected, the plaintiffs filed motions to compel, and the trial judge ' issued orders requiring the hospital to produce all employment and personnel records of the nurses excluding items that are “clearly committee evaluations.” Among other things, the trial judge found:
a. Defendant has no standing to assert any rights of privacy that may inure to the benefit of the four above named individuals;
b. § 768.40, Fla.Stat., and its interpretive case law, prohibits discovery of committee evaluations of nurses; and c. The items requested in the request to produce are relevant to the subject matter of the pending action and reasonably appear calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
The trial judge also provided for in-camera inspection of items which the hospital is unable to determine are or are not committee evaluations.
The hospital (and the hospital’s carrier) petition for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders. We deny the petition.
Orders relating to the scope of discovery are within the wide discretion of the trial court and should not be overturned absent departure from the essential requirements of law. Burroughs Corp. v. White Lumber Sales, Inc., 372 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).
The hospital has not proven it has standing to assert the privacy rights of the nurses. A mere employee/employer relationship is not the kind of special relationship necessary for third party standing. See, Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 97 S.Ct. 451, 50 L.Ed.2d 397 (1976). Also, the nurses have moved to intervene. If they are allowed to intervene, they can assert their own rights.
Of course, the hospital may assert its own interests in preventing disclosure. In this regard, however, the hospital has asserted no privilege.
We agree with the trial judge’s finding that discovery of the nurses’ employment and personnel files is not completely barred by statute. We will not disturb the trial judge’s findings of relevance.
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
BOOTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alterra Healthcare Corp. v. Est. OF Francis Shelley, 827 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 2002)…n of the trial court’s order which compelled the production of the materials requested. The First District denied the petition for writ of certiorari on the basis that it was bound by its decision in North Florida Regional Hospital, Inc. v. Douglas, 454 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), to hold that Sterling House did not have standing to raise the privacy rights of its employees. Alterra Health Care Corp., 779 So. 2d at 636. However, the First District acknowledged and certified conflict with Beverly Enterpris…
-
Duke H. Scott, M.D. v. Nelson, 697 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…on to determine matters relating to discovery, and such orders reviewed pursuant to a petition for writ of certiorari will not be overturned absent departure from the essential requirements of law. See, e.g., North Florida Regional Hosp. v. Douglas, 454 So. 2d 759, 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). While we recognize and respect strong public policy favoring settlement of disputed claims and policy which dictates that confidentiality agreements not be regarded lightly, we find that to prevent any discovery based upon…
-
Alterra Health Care Corp. v. Est. of Frances Shelley, 779 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…e privacy rights of its non-party employees and departed from the essential requirements of law by ordering Al-terra to produce employee personnel files containing confidential information. We are bound by North Florida Reg’l Hosp., Inc. v. Douglas, 454 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), in which we held that an employer does not have standing to raise the privacy rights of its employees. Since, under Douglas, Alterra did not have standing to assert the privacy rights of its non-party employees, the trial court…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (U.S. 1976)
- Burroughs Corp. v. White Lumber Sales, Inc., 372 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)