HCA OF FLORIDA, INC., D/B/A DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF SARASOTA, PETITIONER,
v.
GARY R. COOPER, M.D., RESPONDENT
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.
HCA of Florida sought review of a trial court order requiring production of medical review committee records. The court held that while the statutory privilege under Section 768.40(4) did not apply, such records are nonetheless protected from discovery absent a showing of exceptional necessity or extraordinary circumstances based on common-law public policy.
Medical review committee records are not subject to discovery absent a showing of exceptional necessity or extraordinary circumstances, based on common-law public policy protecting such records, regardless of whether the statutory privilege applies. The respondent failed to make such a showing.
[1] Medical review committee records may be protected from discovery as a matter of public policy, even when a specific statutory privilege does not apply.
[2] Discovery of medical review committee records requires a showing of exceptional necessity or extraordinary circumstances.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“even without a pertinent statute such records and reports may not be subject to discovery”
Establishes that medical review committee records can be protected from discovery based on common law even without statutory privilege
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHCA of Florida (Doctors Hospital of Sarasota) sought a writ of certiorari to review a trial court's order requiring production of medical review commi…
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 Extraordinary Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a trial court’s order requiring the production of certain medical review committee records.
The trial court correctly held that the “arising out of” requirement of Section 768.40(4), Florida Statutes (1983),1 has not been met, and thus the statutory privilege was inapplicable.
However, as the Third District Court of Appeal concluded in Dade County Medical Association v. Hlis, 372 So. 2d 117, 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), “even without a pertinent statute” such records and reports may not be subject to discovery. In Dade County Medical Association, the court held (372 So. 2d at 121):
By this decision, we do not establish a general common-law “privilege” of nondisclosure of documents of the character involved in this case, much less indicate the parameters of such a privilege. We hold merely that in view of what has been called “the overwhelming public interest in maintaining the confidentiality” of such records, the defendants have not made the “showing of exceptional necessity” or of “extraordinary circumstances” which is required to justify their production, [citations omitted]
The Fourth District has adopted this rule in Segal v. Roberts, 380 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1117 (Fla.1980), holding:
Although the statute is not applicable in this case, we nevertheless hold, as did the Third District in Dade County Medical Association v. Hlis, 372 So. 2d 117 (Fla. DCA 1979), that many of the matters sought here are not subject to discovery as a matter of public policy. The arguments in favor of confidentiality of the records and proceedings of a medical review committee are so compelling that discovery should be allowed only in the most necessitous circumstances. We cite with approval the opinion by Judge Alan Schwartz in the Dade County Medical Association case, supra; for an apt analysis of this point.
Likewise, we adopt the rule as stated in Dade County Medical Association and conclude that respondent has failed to show “exceptional necessity” or “extraordinary circumstances,” which are required to justify the production of medical review committee records. Compare Mercy Hospital v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, 467 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and the discovery order below is quashed.
BOOTH, C.J., and MILLS and JOANOS, JJ., concur. . Section 768.40(4), Florida Statutes (1983), provides, in pertinent part:
The proceedings and records of committees as described in the preceding subsections shall not be subject to discovery or introduc tion into evidence in any civil action against a provider of professional health services arising out of the matters which are the subject of evaluation and review by such committee.... [emphasis added]
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc. v. Ives, 832 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…of matters which were the subject of evaluation and analysis. See, e.g., Good Samaritan Hospital, Inc. v. American Home Products Corporation, 569 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), rev. dismissed 576 So. 2d 284 (Fla.1990); HCA of Fla., Inc. v. Cooper, 475 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The instant case is a clear example of a discovery order that violates the protection afforded by the applicable statute and which is in conflict with the explicit language of Cruger. Accordingly, we grant the petition for cer…
-
BAY Med. Ctr. v. Sapp, 535 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…licy in favor of confidentiality of such records, discovery of those documents would not be allowed absent a showing of “exceptional necessity” or of “extraordinary circumstances” which would justify their production. HCA of Florida, Inc. v. Cooper, 475 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Dade County Medical Ass’n v. Hlis, 372 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). In this case, it is apparent that the suit arises out of a matter, Dr. Gooding’s alcoholism, which was or could have been the subject of evaluation and revie…
-
Good Samaritan Hosp., Inc. v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 569 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…es the relief sought by petitioners. See Segal v. Roberts, 380 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 1980). See also Dade County Medical Ass’n v. Hlis, 372 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); HCA of Florida, Inc. v. Cooper, 475 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). We further conclude there has been no waiver by petitioners. GLICKSTEIN, WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Dade Cnty. Med. Ass'n v. Hlis, 372 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Myron I. Segal v. Roberts, 380 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Mercy Hosp. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 467 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)