MARION COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, APPELLANT,
v.
THE HONORABLE ELWYN M. AKINS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, AND THE DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, 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 court held that the deputy commissioner did not violate essential requirements of law by issuing a subpoena for hospital records, as the claimant waived the right to assert confidentiality.
The deputy commissioner ordered the production of hospital records, and the hospital moved to quash the subpoena. The claimant, though not signing a w…
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 Waiver Of Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from the order of the deputy commissioner compel ling production of hospital records, wherein the parties have sought to present to this court for resolution the effect of Section 395.017(3), Florida Statutes, on the power of the deputy to subpoena hospital records pursuant to Section 440.33, Florida Statutes. We treat the appeal as petition for writ of certiorari.
After oral argument,1 and upon careful consideration of the records and briefs before us, we find that the issue sought to be presented is moot since, under the facts of this particular case, claimant has waived the right to assert confidentiality under Section 395.017(3), by agreeing with the position of the' employer/carrier that the records were properly subject to subpoena issued by the deputy. Thus, although claimant did not sign a written consent form, the privilege to assert confidentiality under the statute, being personal to the claimant, has been waived.
It is a long-standing rule of appellate jurisprudence that the court will not undertake to resolve issues which, though of interest to the bench and bar, are not dispositive of the particular case before the court. Accordingly, we hold that the deputy, in issuing subpoena duces tecum and denying the hospital’s motion to quash, modify or limit that subpoena, did not violate essential requirements of law. Petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
MILLS, BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur. . Counsel for claimant, and for the amicus curiae, although filing briefs, were not present at oral argument and did not seek to avail themselves of opportunity to present oral argument to the court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pagan v. Sarasota Cnty. Pub. Hosp. Bd., 884 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…standing rule of appellate jurisprudence that the appellate court should not undertake to resolve issues which, though of interest to the bench and bar, are not dispositive of the particular case before the court. Marion County Hosp. Dist. v. Akins, 435 So. 2d 272, 273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Accordingly, while we affirm the trial court’s ruling as it affects these parties on the basis of this limited record and based on the specific issues preserved for review by this court, the trial court was not authorized t…
-
Apthorp v. Detzner, 162 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…ound to take notice of the limits of their authority and if want of jurisdiction appears at any stage of the proceedings, original or appellate, the court should notice the defect and enter an appropriate order”); Marion County Hosp. Dist. v. Akins, 435 So. 2d 272, 273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (“It is a long-standing rule of appellate jurisprudence that the court will not undertake to resolve issues which, though of interest to the bench and bar, are not dispositive of the particular case before the court.”). Dis…
-
Orchid Island Props., Inc. v. W.G. Mills, 889 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…the case is still pending in the trial court. As a result, we do not have jurisdiction to review the order enforcing the MSA. This court does not provide advisory opinions on how to litigate or perfect an appeal. Marion County Hosp. Dist. v. Akins, 435 So. 2d 272, 273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Walker v. State, 459 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). We are confined to ruling on the matters before us. The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. TAYLOR, J., concurs. GROSS, J., concurs specially with opinion.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence