WILLIAM A. CAMPBELL, APPELLANT,
v.
WENDY'S OF SOUTH FLORIDA AND RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
In a workers' compensation case, the Florida District Court of Appeal granted certiorari to quash a deputy commissioner's order requiring the claimant to furnish an authorization for release of medical records located in South Carolina. The court held that medical records must be obtained through the discovery procedures in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, not through alternative methods, even if those alternatives are more expedient.
A deputy commissioner may not order production of medical records outside of the discovery procedures provided by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, even though an alternative method might be more expedient. The discovery rules must be followed in workers' compensation proceedings and may not be dispensed with for reasons of convenience or cost-benefit analysis.
[1] An employer/carrier may not obtain discovery of medical records through a method ordered by a deputy commissioner if those records can be obtained through discovery proce…
[2] Discovery in workers' compensation proceedings must be accomplished in the same manner as provided in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
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“These medical records can be obtained by the use of discovery procedures set forth in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and thus the employer/carrier may not obtain discovery through the method ordered by the deputy, even though this method is more expedient.”
Establishes the core holding that prescribed discovery procedures must be followed regardless of convenience.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA claimant in a workers' compensation proceeding was ordered by the deputy commissioner to provide authorization for release of medical records locate…
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 Discovery Procedures cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
Claimant seeks review by petition for writ of certiorari of an order of the deputy commissioner requiring him to fur nish an authorization for release of his medical records in South Carolina. These medical records can be obtained by the use of discovery procedures set forth in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and thus the employer/carrier may not obtain discovery through the method ordered by the deputy, even though this method is more expedient.
Accordingly, we grant certiorari and quash the deputy’s order.
We agree with the claimant that this case is indistinguishable from Reinhardt v. Northside Motors, Inc., 479 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
In that case, Reinhardt sought review by petition for writ of certiorari of an order which directed her to furnish the respondents with an authorization for release of medical records located in California. There, as here, the respondents had not sought production of the records pursuant to rule 1.350 or 1.351, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. There, as here, the medical records were located in a state whose procedural rules authorized its courts to issue subpoenas to aid discovery arising from litigation in other states. Because the respondents failed to show the records could not be obtained by the use of discovery procedures already provided by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the trial court’s order constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law.
The result should not be different in this instance because this is a workers’ compensation proceeding. It is the expressed intent of rule 4.090(e), Florida Workers’ Compensation Rules of Procedure, that discovery should be accomplished “in the same manner” as provided in the civil rules. See Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Kostrubanic, 421 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The discovery rules may not be dispensed with in workers’ compensation proceedings simply because of convenience or a costs/benefits analysis. Brevard Community College v. Barber, 488 So. 2d 93, 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Kostrubanic, 421 So. 2d at 53. As we noted in Kostrubanic, 421 So. 2d at 53, if compliance with the discovery rules imposes too much hardship, then this point should properly be addressed by rule revision.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the deputy’s order is quashed.
SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Reinhardt v. Northside Motors, Inc., 479 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Brevard Cmty. Coll. & Gallagher-Bassett Ins. Serv. v. Anderson Barber, 488 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Publix Supermarkets v. Kostrubanic, 421 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)