STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ADAM G. WENGER, APPELLEE
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.
Florida appeals the suppression of a blood test report obtained from Adam Wenger following a fatal motor vehicle accident. The court affirmed suppression because the state obtained the medical records via subpoena without providing required statutory notice to the patient, violating the privileged and confidential status of medical records under Florida law.
The blood test results were properly suppressed because the state attorney violated section 395.017, Florida Statutes, by failing to provide the statutorily required notice to Wenger that his medical records were the subject of a subpoena duces tecum. The privileged and confidential status of patient records cannot be circumvented by the state's general subpoena powers.
[1] A patient's medical records are privileged and confidential and shall not be disclosed without the patient's consent, unless an exception applies.
[2] A patient's consent is not required to obtain medical records in a civil or criminal action when a subpoena is issued and proper notice is given to the patient or their l…
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“Wenger's blood sample was drawn for medical treatment purposes rather than for determination of blood alcohol content pursuant to section 316.1932 or section 316.-1933, Florida Statutes (1987).”
Establishes that the blood sample was obtained in a medical context, not as part of a DUI investigation, which protects it under patient confidentiality statutes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAdam Wenger was brought to a hospital for treatment of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident in which a person was killed. His blood sample 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 Confidentiality Of Medical Records cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
The state appeals the suppression of a blood test report of a specimen taken from Adam Wenger. The specimen was taken shortly after he was brought to a hospital for treatment of injuries he received in a motor vehicle accident in which a person was killed. We affirm the order suppressing the blood test results.
Wenger’s blood sample was drawn for medical treatment purposes rather than for determination of blood alcohol content pursuant to section 316.1932 or section 316.-1933, Florida Statutes (1987). After hearing reports that Wenger had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath at the time of the accident, the state attorney obtained the blood test report pursuant to his subpoena powers under section 27.04, Florida Statutes (1987). Notice was not given to Wen-ger that the state was seeking his medical records from the hospital.
Section 395.017, Florida Statutes (1987), allows a patient’s medical records to be obtained from a licensed facility such as a hospital. Subsection (3) of the statute provides that “[pjatient records shall have a privileged and confidential status and shall not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain.” Paragraph (d) of subsection (3) provides that the patient’s consent is not required “[i]n any civil or criminal action, unless otherwise prohibited by law, upon the issuance of a subpoena ... and proper notice by the party seeking such records to the patient or his legal representative.” Since the state attorney failed to provide the simple notice to Wenger that his blood test results were the subject of a subpoena duces tecum, the results were obtained contrary to the privileged and confidential status given to them by the legislature and were properly suppressed.
The state suggests that the subpoena powers of its attorneys under section 27.04, Florida Statutes (1987), are paramount to the privileged and confidential status bestowed upon patients’ records pursuant to section 395.017. We cannot follow that suggestion in the presence of the clear language of section 395.017(3)(d) that requires notice to be given to the patient when his records are sought by subpoena.
AFFIRMED.
COBB and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.