COLUMBIA HOSPITAL CORP. OF SOUTH DADE D/B/A SOUTH DADE HEALTHCARE GROUP, LTD., LEIGH MASSENGILL, AND JUDE TORCHIA, PETITIONERS,
v.
A. RODOLFO BARRERA, JR., 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.
A Florida appeals court quashed a trial court order requiring a hospital to produce a physician's application for medical staff privileges and amendments thereto, holding that such credentialing materials are protected from discovery under Florida's medical review committee privilege statute.
The court held that applications for staff privileges and related amendments are protected records of the Medical Review Committee under sections 395.0191 and 766.101, Florida Statutes, and thus not subject to discovery in civil actions.
[1] Applications for medical staff privileges are protected from discovery under Florida Statutes section 766.101(5).
[2] The investigations, proceedings, and records of a medical review committee are not subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in civil or administrative actions a…
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 investigations, proceedings, and records of [the medical review] committee ... shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil or administrative action against a provider of professional health services arising out of the matters which are the subject of evaluation and review by such committee.”
This statute provides the core legal basis for protecting medical review committee records from discovery, including staff privilege applications.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceColumbia Hospital Corp. and others sought certiorari review of a trial court order directing the hospital to turn over Dr. Barrera's application for m…
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 Statutory Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Citing to Cruger v. Love, 599 So. 2d 111 (Fla.1992) and Ornda Healthcorp v. Berghof 722 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), we grant certiorari and quash that part of the order under review which instructs that a hospital turn over a doctor’s application for medical privileges and “any amendments or revisions thereto submitted by or on behalf of the Plaintiff.” (This material referred to in the order as item 1.)
In Omda the medical center appealed from an order mandating that it release credentialing material, to-wit: the doctor’s application for staff privileges and an application for malpractice insurance, to plaintiffs. We granted certiorari concluding: Section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes, provides: “[t]he investigations, proceedings, and records of [the medical review] committee ... shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil or administrative 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). § Fla. Stat. 766.101(5) (1997). In Cruger v. Love, 599 So. 2d 111 (Fla.1992), the Supreme Court of Florida held that applications for staff privileges are part of the records of the Medical Review Committee and thus, protected under section 766.101(5). Cruger v. Love, 599 So. 2d at 114.
Accordingly, the order under review is vacated, and this cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent herewith. (Emphasis added).
Ornda Healthcorp v. Berghof 722 So. 2d at 961.
Likewise, the material ordered produced in the instant case is protected by the statutory privilege provided in sections 395.0191 and 766.101 Florida Statutes (1997). The documents sought may well be marked with comments by fellow physicians, and it is exactly these types of comments which must be protected in order to ensure that doctors speak freely and render meaningful opinions of their colleagues. See Miami Heart Inst. v. Reis, 638 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). The best source of the information is the doctor himself.
Accordingly, the petition is granted and that part of the order relating to item 1 is quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Humana Med. Plan, Inc. v. Brunhildie Erdely, 785 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…lding patient could obtain a copy of application for staff privileges from doctor, although application was record of peer review committee for purposes of statutory privilege from discovery). In Columbia Hosp. [*716] Corp. of South Dade v. Barrera, 738 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1999), the third district granted certiorari and quashed a lower court order directing a hospital to turn over the doctor’s application for medical privileges. The Third District said, Likewise, the material ordered produced in the in…
Authorities Cited
- Parrado v. State, 599 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1992)
- Elois Posey Cruger v. Douglas J. Love, M.D., 599 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1992)
- The Miami Heart Inst. & the Miami Heart Research Inst. v. Reis, 638 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Ornda Healthcorp v. Berghof, 722 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)