LYDIA D. PIERRE, BY AND THROUGH HER HUSBAND AND LEGAL GUARDIAN, ISSONEL PIERRE, THE PIERRE CHILDREN, AND ISSONEL PIERRE, INDIVIDUALLY, PETITIONERS,
v.
NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC., JAMES W. PORTER, M.D., AND HARARI, PORTER, BLUMENTHAL AND BROWN, M.D., P.A., D/B/A EMERGENCY MEDICAL SPECIALISTS OF SOUTH FLORIDA, RESPONDENTS

Fla. | 1996-01-18
No. 85905
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
671 So. 2d 157 Florida Supreme Court (1996)

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.

Synopsis

The court quashes a district court decision that conflicted with Acosta v. Richter, applying the physician-patient privilege and its exception for physician defense in medical negligence actions to the Pierre case.


Holding

The district court's decision is quashed because it is inconsistent with Acosta v. Richter, which held that section 455.241(2), Florida Statutes (1993), creates a physician-patient privilege with a limited exception for disclosure by a defendant physician in a medical negligence action.


Headnotes

[1] Section 455.241(2), Florida Statutes (1993), establishes a physician-patient privilege of confidentiality for a patient's medical information.

[2] A limited exception to the physician-patient privilege allows a defendant physician to disclose a patient's medical information to defend against a medical negligence act…

Previewing 2 of 3 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

Facts & Procedural History

This case involved consolidated appeals, including Pierre v. North Shore Medical Center, concerning the physician-patient privilege. The court reviewe…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Castillo-Plaza v. Green, 655 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995),1 which expressly and directly conflicts with the opinions in Kirkland v. Middleton, 639 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA), review dismissed, 645 So. 2d 453 (Fla.1994), and Richter v. Bar gala, 647 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), review granted sub nom. Acosta v. Richter, 650 So. 2d 989 (Fla.1995).

We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We have now addressed the issue presented in this case in Acosta v. Richter, No. 84,413 (Fla. Jan. 18, 1995), and held that section 455.241(2), Florida Statutes (1993), creates a physician-patient privilege of confidentiality for the patient’s medical information, and a limited exception to the privilege for disclosure by a defendant physician in a medical negligence action in order for the physician to defend herself. In the opinion we also disapproved of the decision under review in the instant case.

Accordingly, because the decision under review is inconsistent with Acosta, we quash it and remand to the district court for proceedings consistent with our opinion in Acosta.

It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. . In the district court, this case constituted three consolidated cases: Castillo-Plaza v. Green, No. 94-1428; Pierre v. North Shore Medical Center, No. 94-1493; and Giron v. Noy, No. 94-1675. We dismissed Giron v. Noy after petitioners moved for a voluntary dismissal, see Giron v. Noy, 661 So. 2d 824 (Fla.1995), and neither party in Castillo-Plaza sought review in this Court. Consequently, our decision today applies only to Pierre v. North Shore Medical Center.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw