ALL CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
RANDALL DAVIS, INDIVIDUALLY; VICKIE DAVIS, INDIVIDUALLY; AND RANDALL DAVIS AND VICKIE DAVIS, AS PARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS OF CRYSTAL DAVIS, 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.
Florida appellate court granted in part a hospital's petition for writ of certiorari, holding that peer review committee member names, incident reports, and certain health department report details are protected from discovery under Florida's peer review statute and work product doctrine.
A hospital need not disclose peer review committee member names, incident reports protected by work product privilege, or details beyond the fact and timing of a health department report, though it must disclose whether and when such a report was made.
[1] Peer review committee member names and addresses are not discoverable under Florida Statute section 766.101 where such disclosure would not be relevant or lead to admissi…
[2] Hospital incident reports are protected by work product privilege and not discoverable absent a showing of undue hardship by the requesting party.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Discovery of material pertaining to peer review is protected by section 766.-101, Florida Statutes (1989).”
Court explaining the statutory protection for peer review materials
All Children's Hospital objected to interrogatories seeking the names and addresses of peer review committee members, information about an incident re…
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 Peer Review Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
All Children’s Hospital, Inc. seeks a petition for writ of certiorari to review a circuit court order that overruled the hospital’s objections to certain interrogatories. As discussed below, we grant in part and deny in part.
We find that the court erred in ordering the hospital to reveal the names and addresses of the peer review committee members present when the case was discussed. Discovery of material pertaining to peer review is protected by section 766.-101, Florida Statutes (1989). While the names of the committee members are not specifically protected by the statute, the release of the names would neither be relevant nor lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b). . We also find that the court should not have directed the petitioner to reveal information regarding the hospital’s incident report. The report is clearly protected by the work product privilege and the respondents did not show a need for the material and that they would suffer “undue hardship” in obtaining equivalent information. Bay Medical Center v. Sapp, 535 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
Finally, while we find no error in requiring the hospital to reveal whether it reported the incident to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services pursuant to section 395.041(6), Florida Statutes (1989), and when such report was made, any additional information regarding the report is neither discoverable nor admissible by the terms of the statute.
Accordingly, we grant in part and deny in part the petition for writ for certiorari.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and SCHEB and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bayfront Med. Ctr., Inc. v. State, 741 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…records in the broadest manner to protect the integrity of the “peer review” process. We are not persuaded to do otherwise. See Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217 (Fla.1984); Cruger v. Love, 599 So. 2d 111 (Fla.1992); All Children’s Hosp., Inc. v. Davis, 590 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Paracelsus Santa Rosa Medical Center v. Smith, 732 So. 2d 49, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Munroe Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Rountree, 721 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Variety Children’s Hosp. v. Mishler…
-
Brandon Reg'l Hosp. v. Murray, 957 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 2007)…records in the broadest manner to protect the integrity of the "peer review” process. We are not persuaded to do otherwise. See Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217 (Fla.1984); Cruger v. Love, 599 So. 2d 111 (Fla.1992); All Children’s Hosp., Inc. v. Davis, 590 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Paracelsus Santa Rosa Medical Center v. Smith, 732 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Munroe Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Rountree, 721 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Variety Children's Hosp. v. Mishler, 670 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 3d…
-
Mount Sinai Med. Ctr. OF Greater Miami, Inc. v. Bernstein, 645 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…rpose, as described in the section shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil or administrative action.... ” These sections shield such hospital activities from discovery. In All Children’s Hospital, Inc. v. Davis, 590 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), the trial court ordered a hospital to reveal the names and addresses of peer review committee members present when the case was discussed. As the Second District held: Discovery of material pertaining to peer review is protected…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- BAY Med. Ctr. v. Sapp, 535 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)