MARK H. FELDMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STEPHEN GLUCROFT, M.D., JOEL B. DENNIS, M.D., LLOYD A. MORIBER, M.D., MELVYN G. DRUCKER, M.D., KENNETH HODOR, M.D., HUGH UNGER, M.D. AND ORTHOPEDIC ASSOCIATES, P.A., 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.
A podiatrist challenged the revocation of his hospital privileges and sued physicians for defamation based on statements made during medical review committee proceedings. The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, holding that Florida Statute 768.40(4) creates an absolute privilege barring defamation claims arising from medical review committee proceedings and is constitutionally valid.
Section 768.40(4) creates an absolute privilege that totally abolishes any defamation action arising from proceedings before medical review committees. The statute is constitutionally valid and does not unconstitutionally deny access to the courts.
[1] A statute providing absolute privilege for statements made in medical review committee proceedings bars defamation claims arising from such proceedings.
[2] Statements made in medical review committee proceedings are inadmissible as evidence in defamation actions.
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 language of the statute creates an absolute privilege and means that any existing defamation action has been totally abolished”
Establishes the court's interpretation of section 768.40(4) as creating an absolute privilege that completely eliminates defamation claims in this context
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMark Feldman, a podiatrist, had his privileges to perform certain procedures at Parkway General Hospital revoked following proceedings before hospital…
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 Absolute Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The appellant is a podiatrist whose privileges to perform certain procedures at Parkway General Hospital were revoked. He brought the instant action against several medical doctors, claiming, insofar as is now relevant,1 that they had defamed him in the course of the proceedings conducted concerning his case by the appropriate hospital medical review committees. We agree with the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for the defendants on the ground that no such action may be maintained under section 768.40(4), Florida Statutes (1983) (formerly section 768.131(4)), as interpreted in Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217 (Fla.1984). It is true that Holly and Parkway General Hospital, Inc. v. Allinson, 453 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), are, strictly speaking, only discovery cases, and do not treat the present situation of the plaintiffs total inability to establish a claim by virtue of the fact that the very subject matter of the alleged defamation is barred under the terms of the statute from “introduction into evidence.” Nevertheless, we think it clear from the Holly case, particularly when read in the light of Justice Shaw’s dissenting opinion — which does directly treat the point — that the language of the statute creates an absolute privilege and means that any existing defamation action has been totally abolished.
Nor do we agree with Dr. Feldman that, as so interpreted, the statute unconstitutionally denies access to the courts as provided by Article I, Section 21, Florida Constitution.2 The public policy consideration expounded in Holly and the statute itself, see also Dade County Medical Association v. Hlis, 372 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), provide ample basis upon which the legislature could validly have eliminated the action. See Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 476 So. 2d 657 (Fla.1985); Rotwein v. Gersten, 160 Fla. 736, 36 So. 2d 419 (1948).
Because of the importance and novelty of the precise issues presented, we certify to the supreme court that this decision passes upon the following questions of great public importance:
(1) Does section 768.40(4) totally abolish a defamation claim arising in proceedings before medical review committees?
(2) If so, is section 768.40(4) invalid as in conflict with Article I, section 21, Florida Constitution?
Affirmed, questions certified.
. A 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim asserted in a separate count has been abandoned. See Hull v. Board of Comm’rs of Halifax Hosp. Medical Center, 453 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
. We find the appellant’s separate equal protection claim totally unconvincing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Feldman v. Stephen Glucroft, M.D., 522 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1988)…OVERTON, Justice. This is a petition to review Feldman v. Glucroft, 488 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), in which the Third District Court of Appeal held that a defamation action could not be maintained against medical review committee members and the hospital they serve due to the privilege established by section 768.40(4), Florida…
-
Feldman v. Stephen Glucroft, M.D., 553 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…is court affirmed, holding that a defamation action could not be maintained against medical review committee members and the hospital they serve due to the privilege established by section 768.40(4), Florida Statutes (1983). See Feldman v. Glucroft, 488 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). This court certified the question and the supreme court, in Feldman v. Glucroft, 522 So. 2d 798 (Fla.1988), held that a defamation claim arising under that statute is not totally abolished since a plaintiff may proceed with such…
Authorities Cited
- Eugene Holly, M.D. v. Albert W. Auld, M.D., 450 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1984)
- Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 476 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1985)
- Dade Cnty. Med. Ass'n v. Hlis, 372 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- THE Times Publ'g Co. v. Rowland, 160 Fla. 736 (Fla. 1948)
- Rotwein v. Gersten, 160 Fla. 736 (Fla. 1948)
- Parkway Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Peter G. Allinson, M.D., 453 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Byrum v. State, 453 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- James G. Hull, D.O. v. The Bd. OF Comm'rs OF the Halifax Hosp. Med. Ctr., 453 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)