MALIHA KHAIRZDAH, APPELLANT,
v.
SULTAN KHAIRZDAH AND SIMEEN KHAIRZDAH, APPELLEES
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 trial court erred in denying the wife's motion for a protective order based on the psychotherapist-patient privilege under Florida Statutes section 90.503, and the order is quashed and remanded.
A psychotherapist-patient privilege under Florida Statutes section 90.503 protects psychological hospital records from disclosure in domestic relations cases absent a statutory exception.
[1] The psychotherapist-patient privilege under Florida Statutes section 90.503 protects hospital psychological records from discovery in domestic relations custody proceedin…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a custody dispute, the husband subpoenaed the wife's psychological hospital records from Broward General Medical Center pertaining to treatment pri…
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 Evidentiary Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
The issue in this appeal from a non-final order, which we treat as a petition for writ of certiorari, involves the application of the psychotherapist-patient privilege afforded by section 90.503, Florida Statutes (1983).
During the course of their domestic relations case both husband and wife requested custody of their minor children, each contending that he or she was a fit and proper custodial parent. The husband subpoenaed psychological hospital records from Bro-ward General Medical Center pertaining to the wife’s treatment during a period prior to the commencement of this litigation. Although the wife objected thereto and sought a protective order based upon the statutory privilege extended by section 90.-503, Florida Statutes (1983), the trial court denied the motion.
In our judgment, this case is controlled by McIntyre v. McIntyre, 404 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), Mohammad v. Mohammad, 358 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and Roper v. Roper, 336 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Appellant’s reliance upon Miraglia v. Miraglia, 462 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), Davidge v. Davidge, 451 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), and Critchlow v. Critchlow, 347 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), is misplaced. The factual situations in those cases brought them under a statutory exception to the privilege.
Accordingly, the order denying petitioner’s motion for protective order is quashed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
GLICKSTEIN and BARRETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Critchlow v. Critchlow, 347 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Thellie S. Roper v. Roper, 336 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Miraglia v. Miraglia, 462 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- McINTYRE v. McINTYRE, 404 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Mahmood Mohammad v. Shala Mohammad, 358 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Davidge v. Davidge, 451 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)