THOMAS J. WILSON, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENTS AND LEGAL GUARDIANS, THOMAS W. WILSON AND BETH ANNE WILSON, AND THOMAS W. WILSON AND BETH ANNE WILSON, INDIVIDUALLY, PETITIONERS,
v.
MARIO E. RODRIQUEZ, M.D., DAVID HOWARD, M.D., STRATTON STERGHOS, M.D., AND LAUDERDALE GYNECOLOGIC ASSOCIATES, STERGHOS, GRENITZ, HUNTSINGER, RAZIANO & RODRIQUEZ, P.A., 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.
A Florida appellate court granted a petition for certiorari and quashed a trial court order compelling medical authorization releases for out-of-state medical records. The court held that respondents failed to demonstrate that medical records could not be obtained through proper Florida discovery procedures, particularly by subpoenaing documents at scheduled depositions.
The court held that the trial court departed from essential requirements of law by granting the motion to compel authorizations. Respondents must use proper discovery procedures available under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure before resorting to medical authorization releases, and their unilateral cancellation of scheduled depositions divested them of the opportunity to pursue this proper route.
[1] A trial court departs from the essential requirements of law by compelling the release of medical records when the requesting party failed to utilize available discovery…
[2] A party seeking to compel the production of medical records must first demonstrate that such records cannot be obtained through standard discovery methods.
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 trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by granting the respondents' motion to compel medical authorizations releasing petitioners' medical records in Michigan as respondents failed to show the records could not be obtained by the use of discovery procedures provided by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure”
Statement of the central legal error made by the trial court
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners are a minor and his parents in a medical malpractice action. Respondents scheduled multiple depositions of petitioners' Michigan physician…
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
PER CURIAM.
We grant the petition for certiorari and quash the trial court’s order. Petitioners assert that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by granting the respondents’ motion to compel medical authorizations releasing petitioners’ medical records in Michigan as respondents failed to show the records could not be obtained by the use of discovery procedures provided by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioners point out that although respondents scheduled numerous depositions of the petitioners’ Michigan physicians, these depositions were voluntarily and unilaterally cancelled by respondents who thereby divested themselves of the opportunity to obtain the desired medical records through the proper discovery route; namely, pursuant to a subpoena for production of documents at the petitioners’ Michigan physicians’ depositions. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.410(d).
Respondents concede in their response to petitioners’ petition for writ of certiorari that “the reasons for the cancellations [of the scheduled depositions duces tecum] are not evidenced.” They then argue that “the futility of going ahead with the depositions is obvious” since medical records cannot be obtained by subpoenas duces tecum under Michigan law which recognizes a physician-patient privilege.
Respondents’ argument in this regard is without merit as it is well settled that the law that controls in an action for a tort is that of the place where the tort was committed. Ganem v. Ganem de Issa, 269 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 277 So. 2d 284 (Fla.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1113, 94 S.Ct. 844, 38 L.Ed.2d 740 (1973); 10 Fla.Jur.2d Conflict of Laws § 43 (1979). The parties agree that the tort involved in the instant case was committed in Broward County, Florida. The substantive law and procedural rules of Florida therefore control the action. Ganem.
HERSEY, C.J., GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
OLD Holdings, Ltd. v. Taplin, Howard, Shaw & Miller, P.A., 584 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…tence of a privilege under California law is simply a factor the trial court should consider. See Strauss v. Sillin, 393 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); 10 Fla.Jur.2d Conflict of Laws § 4, § 47, § 50 (1979). See also and compare Wilson v. Rodriquez, 547 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Accordingly, the trial court’s May 8, 1991, order is quashed insofar as it compels production of copies of bills for services rendered and time records of Tobin & To-bin, Inc., for the LHO Trust, Robert Ohl, Brian Ohl, and Old…
-
Condon v. Cmty. Psychiatric Ctrs., 583 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…thout scheduling depositions) upon out of state health care providers. The petitioners have objected. The respondents have not shown that the medical records could not be otherwise obtained by the use of available discovery. Cf. Wilson v. Rodriguez, 547 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Reinhardt v. Northside Motors, Inc., 479 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Johnston v. Donnelly, 581 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). HERSEY, STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.…
-
Pub. Health Tr. OF Dade Cnty. v. Chente, 565 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…ase all documents concerning Jackson Memorial’s residency program in emergency medicine, gastroen-terology, internal medicine and general surgery. We grant certiorari and quash the trial court’s order based on the authorities of Wilson v. Rodriquez, 547 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) and Reinhardt v. Northside Motors, Inc., 479 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). CERTIORARI GRANTED.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Admiral-Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 414 U.S. 1113 (U.S. 1973)
- Sechler v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 414 U.S. 1113 (U.S. 1973)
- Ganem v. Herlinda Ganem de Issa, 269 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Ganem v. Herlinda Ganem de Issa, 277 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 1973)
- Baxter v. Stack, 277 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 1973)