RAYNA MYRON, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS, SHARON BROCK AND HERBERT B. MYRON, AND SHARON BROCK AND HERBERT B. MYRON, INDIVIDUALLY, PETITIONERS,
v.
DOCTORS GENERAL, LTD., ETC., ET AL., 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.
The court denied certiorari review of a trial court order directing production of H.R.S. records to defendants and their experts in a medical malpractice case, finding no departure from law in limiting disclosure to parties, experts, and the jury while maintaining confidentiality as to outside parties.
H.R.S. records may be disclosed to defendants and their experts in litigation while remaining privileged and confidential as to all other outside parties.
[1] H.R.S. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRayna Myron, a minor, filed a medical malpractice claim against doctors and hospitals. H.R.S. progress notes relating to Rayna came into the trial jud…
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 Records cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Petitioners seek certiorari review of orders of the trial court which direct the production and release of H.R.S. records to the respondents and their experts over objection of the petitioners.
The underlying litigation involves a medical malpractice claim filed by Rayna Myron and her parents and natural guardians against several doctors and hospitals. During the pendency of the case, certain H.R.S. records in the form of progress notes relating to Rayna Myron came into the possession of the trial judge. He authorized an in camera inspection of said notes by petitioners. After examining the records, petitioners objected to their being reviewed by respondents. The trial court overruled those objections but granted petitioners’ motion for clarification, and thereafter ruled that the records were privileged, confidential matters as to everyone but the defendants and their experts and were not to be published to outside parties who had no interest in the lawsuit. In sum, the trial court ruled the records were privileged and confidential as to all persons except the parties to this cause, their expert witnesses, and the jury. We find no departure from the essential requirements of law in that ruling. However, in denying the petition, we wish to make it clear that we are dealing with the scope of the privilege and the extent of the confidentiality of said records, and not as to any other objections to their admissibility at trial. Such objections to their admissibility must await the trial setting and the trial judge’s rulings thereon.
Certiorari denied.
POLEN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rayna Myron v. Doctors Gen. Hosp., Ltd., 704 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…to our court, we determined that the petitioners failed to establish a departure from the essential requirements of the law, specifically noting that the judge had made no rulings on the admissibility of the records. See Myron v. Doctors Gen., Ltd., 571 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Subsequent thereto, the legislature amended section 415.51, Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), and our court decided Cebrian v. Klein, 614 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), in which we interpreted the amended statute and held that unf…