NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT, D/B/A BROWARD GENERAL MEDICAL CENTER, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
WILLIAM L. BUTTON, 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 quashed trial court orders compelling production of hospital incident reports and work product materials, holding that such materials are discoverable only upon a showing of need and undue hardship, which plaintiff's unsworn assertions failed to establish.
Work product materials, including hospital incident reports under Florida Statutes section 395.041(4), are discoverable only upon a showing of need and undue hardship in obtaining the substantial equivalent.
[1] Work product materials are discoverable only upon a showing of need and undue hardship in obtaining the substantial equivalent, and unsworn assertions of counsel are insu…
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 intelligenceIn a medical malpractice action, the trial court ordered defendants (a hospital district and related parties) to produce a hospital incident report an…
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.
Petitioners, defendants below in a medical malpractice action, seek review of the trial court’s interlocutory orders compelling production of a hospital incident report and other materials claimed to be privileged under the work product doctrine.
We grant the writ, finding that work product materials, even under section 395.041(4), Florida Statutes (1991), are discoverable only upon a showing of need and undue hardship in obtaining the substantial equivalent. See Mount Sinai Medical Ctr. v. Schulte, 546 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Bay Medical Ctr. v. Sapp, 535 So. 2d 308, 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Humana of Florida, Inc., v. Evans, 519 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). We reject respondent’s contention that the above-cited eases were incorrectly decided.
We also note that a showing of need and undue hardship is more than a bare assertion and must include specific explanations and reasons. See Procter & Gamble Co. v. Swilley, 462 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Speer v. Desrosiers, 361 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Here, the unsworn assertions of plaintiff’s counsel were insufficient to constitute a showing of need and undue hardship.
Accordingly, the trial court’s orders of October 23, 1991, and October 31, 1991, are quashed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
HERSEY, WARNER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Snyder v. Value Rent-A-Car, 736 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…tioners argue that the respondent failed in this case to show that it had need of the- subject diary and was unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. See North Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Button, 592 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). In holding the trial court erred in rejecting the work product objection outright, we decline to address petitioner’s argument at this time. Rather we agree with respondent that the trial court should conduct an in-camera hearin…
-
Columbia Hosp. Corp. OF S. Broward v. Fain, 16 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…ranch of government. Prior to the passage of Amendment 7, a hospital’s incident 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 t…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Knapp, 234 So. 3d 843 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…which is subject to discovery upon a showing of “need” and “undue hardship.” Id. The showing of need and undue hardship necessary to overcome work product immunity must include specific explanations and reasons. See N. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Button, 592 So. 2d 367, 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The alleged work product documents at issue in this case are internal forms and emails relating fo- State Farm’s responses to Boecher interrogatories. Wallace’s affidavit provides evidence that the disputed documents were…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. Swilley, 462 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- BAY Med. Ctr. v. Sapp, 535 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Humana OF Fla., Inc. v. Evans, 519 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Mount Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Schulte, 546 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Speer v. Desrosiers, 361 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)