MOUNT SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, PETITIONER,
v.
SANDRA SCHULTE AND THOMAS SCHULTE, 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.
Mount Sinai Medical Center sought to prevent disclosure of a hospital incident report in a medical malpractice action, claiming attorney work product protection. The Florida appellate court held that while incident reports are generally protected work product, limited disclosure of specific factual information (the epidural catheter manufacturer) was required upon showing of undue hardship, but the entire report need not be produced.
Hospital incident reports are attorney work product discoverable only upon showing undue hardship. The requesting party showed sufficient undue hardship regarding the epidural catheter's make and manufacturer (unavailable through other discovery), but not regarding general incident details (available through hospital personnel and records). Therefore, only the specific information about the catheter's manufacturer must be disclosed, not the entire report.
[1] Hospital incident reports are considered attorney work product and are discoverable only upon a showing of undue hardship.
[2] A showing that an incident report may disclose additional details about an incident, when other discovery avenues have been exhausted, is insufficient to demonstrate undu…
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“A hospital incident report is deemed to be attorney work product and is discoverable only upon a showing that the requesting person "is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means."”
Establishes the legal standard for discovering otherwise confidential hospital incident reports protected as attorney work product.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMount Sinai Medical Center sought to prevent production of a hospital incident report in a medical malpractice action brought by the Schultes. The rep…
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 Attorney Work Product cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By petition for writ of certiorari petitioner asks that we vacate an order requiring production of an otherwise confidential hospital incident report, see § 395.041(4), Fla.Stat. (1987), pertaining to the alleged injury which is the subject of the medical malpractice action below. A hospital incident report is deemed to be attorney work product and is discoverable only upon a showing that the requesting person “is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means.” Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(3) (as amended 1989); accord Dade County Public Health Trust v. Zaidman, 447 So. 2d 282, 283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
The showing of undue hardship proffered here is that the report may disclose (1) the make and manufacturer of a broken epidural catheter (as to which other discovery has been fruitless), and (2) additional details about the incident itself. The second reason is insufficient, as the participating hospital personnel and other contemporaneous hospital records have been made available to respondents. The fact that the incident report might yield additional information about the incident is not enough, without more, to show “undue hardship.”
The first reason, by contrast, is sufficient to compel disclosure of the make and manufacturer of the epidural catheter, assuming that information is contained in the incident report, but is not enough to compel disclosure of the entire incident report. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(3). We therefore grant the writ and direct that the trial court conduct an in camera inspection of the incident report. If the incident report discloses the make or manufacturer of the epidural catheter, then that information shall be disclosed to respondents, but the incident report itself shall not be produced to respondents.
Certiorari granted, order quashed, and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Columbia Hosp. Corp. OF S. Broward v. Fain, 16 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…ident reports have generally been considered protected as fact work product and discoverable only upon a showing of need and undue hardship. N. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Button, 592 So. 2d 367, 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Mount Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Schulte, 546 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Bay Med. Ctr. v. Sapp, 535 So. 2d 308, 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Humana of Fla., Inc. v. Evans, 519 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Amendment 7 provides that “any records mude or received in the course of business by a health ca…
-
DeBARTOLO-Aventura, Inc. v. Hernandez, 638 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…levant law enforcement authorities having jurisdiction at the Mall. “The fact that the incident report might yield additional information about the incident is not enough, without more, to show ‘undue hardship.’” Mt. Sinai Medical Center v. Schulte, 546 So. 2d 37, 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). See generally State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Von Hohenberg, 595 So. 2d 303, 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Dade County Public Health Trust v. Zaidman, 447 So. 2d 282, 283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence…
-
Intercontinental Props., Inc. v. Reynold Samy, 685 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…to Intercontinental. “The fact that the incident report might yield additional information about the incident is not enough, without more, to show 'undue hardship.’ ” DeBaHolo-Aventura, 638 So. 2d at 990 quoting Mt. Sinai Medical Center v. Schulte, 546 So. 2d 37, 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Documents protected by work product immunity must not be lightly invaded, but only upon a particularized showing of need satisfying the criteria set forth in Rule 1.280. Here, as Sarny has ample ability to propound discovery…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lowe v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 447 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Drake v. State, 447 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)