COLONIAL MEDICAL SPECIALTIES OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
UNITED DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., 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.
Colonial Medical Specialties sought certiorari to quash a discovery order requiring it to disclose addresses and telephone numbers of approximately 300 patients to United Diagnostic Laboratories in a breach of contract dispute. The Fourth District held that non-party patients have privacy and confidentiality rights that preclude such disclosure absent a showing of compelling need, and quashed the discovery order.
The court held that non-party patients retain privacy and confidentiality rights in their personal identifying information, and a party seeking such discovery must meet its burden of showing a need for the information that overrides these privacy rights. The discovery order was improper where the respondent failed to make such a showing.
[1] Non-party patients' rights to privacy and confidentiality of their personal information, including addresses and telephone numbers, are protected from discovery.
[2] A trial court must conduct an in-camera inspection to ascertain whether records contain privileged information before ordering their production.
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“the fact that respondent may already have in its records some of this patient information, does not negate the rights of such non-party patients to privacy and confidentiality as to their personal information”
Establishes that patients' privacy rights are not diminished by the nature of the dispute or the opposing party's existing knowledge
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUnited Diagnostic Laboratories sued Colonial Medical Specialties for breach of contract over alleged non-payment for blood work testing. In discovery,…
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 Patient Privacy Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We grant the Petition for writ of certiorari and quash the discovery order of the trial court, compelling petitioner medical offices to provide addresses and telephone numbers of some 300 patients to respondent medical laboratory. Respondent sued petitioner, among other things, for breach of contract over alleged non-payment for certain patient blood work petitioner sent to respondent laboratory for testing. The nature of the dispute, and the fact that respondent may already have in its records some of this patient information, does not negate the rights of such non-party patients to privacy and confidentiality as to their personal information. Amente v. Newman, 653 So. 2d 1030 (Fla.1995) (acknowledging that non-party patients’ rights of privacy and confidentiality of their medical records are protected where trial court requires that all identifying information be redacted from medical records to be produced in medical malpractice action); Haywood v. Samai, 624 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
Here, it appears the trial court failed to conduct any in-camera inspection of the records to ascertain whether they contained privileged information. From a practical standpoint, such in-camera inspection would probably be unnecessary if the court simply ordered personal information as to patient identities, addresses and phone numbers redacted as in Amente. We recognize that is the very information respondent is trying to obtain, but it has failed to meet its burden to show any need for this discovery which would override the privacy rights of these non-party patients. Such an order is a departure from the essential requirements of law which would cause material harm for which there is no adequate remedy on appeal.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORA-RI GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.
GUNTHER, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Berkeley v. Eisen, 699 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…already have some of the information sought “does not negate the rights of such non-part[ies] ... to privacy and confidentiality as to their personal information.” See Colonial Med. Specialties of South Florida, Inc. v. United Diagnostic Lab., Inc., 674 So. 2d 923, 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Thus, the fact that the Eisens already received the clients’ names from Berkeley does not negate the clients’ right of privacy. We, therefore, approach this case as if Berkeley had not disclosed the names of its clients. O…1 / 2
-
Barker v. Barker, 909 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…that is not relevant to the litigation, the discovery order departed from the essential requirements of the law. See Bergmann v. Freda, 829 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Colonial Med. Specialties of S. Fla., Inc. v. United Diagnostic Labs., Inc., 674 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). We quash the order in part and remand for such an in camera inspection to safeguard Hugh’s privacy interests. Otherwise, the Petitioners are not entitled to relief. The Respondents sought production of records and other documen…
-
Voytish v. Ozycz, 695 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…e years of tax returns. Respondent has failed to meet his burden to show any need for this discovery which would override the privacy rights of this non-party. Colonial Med. Specialties of S. Florida v. United Di [*1302] agnostic Laboratories, Inc., 674 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). We recognize that the trial court attempted to protect the non-party’s privacy rights by ordering that counsel redact the irrelevant information. However, the description of the information to be disclosed, “information relate…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bernadette Amente v. Willie B. Newman, M.D., 653 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 1995)
- Arlene Haywood, M.D. v. Samai, 624 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)