LINDA BURT AND JESSE L. BURT, HUSBAND AND WIFE, PETITIONERS,
v.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
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 granted a petition for certiorari to quash a deposition order requiring a wife to answer whether her attorney referred her to a particular physician, holding that the question sought disclosure of confidential attorney-client communications protected by privilege.
A deposition question asking whether an attorney referred a client to a particular physician seeks disclosure of confidential attorney-client communications and is protected by the attorney-client privilege.
[1] A deposition question asking whether an attorney referred a client to a particular physician seeks disclosure of confidential attorney-client communications and is protec…
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 intelligence“The contents of confidential communications between the attorney and client are privileged and not discoverable.”
Court's statement of the governing legal principle regarding attorney-client privilege.
In a personal injury case, the defendant's counsel asked the wife at her deposition when she obtained counsel and whether counsel referred her to a pa…
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 Privileged Information cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiffs, husband and wife in this personal injury case, petition this court for a writ of certiorari to quash an order compelling the wife to answer certain questions at a deposition. Defendant’s counsel asked the wife two questions at her deposition: when did the wife obtain counsel and did counsel refer her to a particular physician. She refused to answer and asserted the attorney-client privilege. We grant the petition.
The contents of confidential communications between the attorney and client are privileged and not discoverable. See § 90.502, Fla.Stat. (1991); Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 101 S.Ct. 677, 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981). Although the first question does not violate the attorney-client privilege in this instance, the second question seeks discovery of confidential communications constituting her attorney’s advice regarding this lawsuit. Such advice is not intended to be disclosed to third parties. The question does not elicit the underlying fact of whether she saw a particular physician, but rather elicits whether she saw the physician at her attorney’s request. Because this communication does not fall within any of the enumerated exceptions to the privilege listed in section 90.502, we grant the petition and quash that portion of the order requiring the wife to answer the second question.
The petition for certiorari is granted, and the circuit court’s order is quashed in part.
LEHAN, C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Worley v. Cent. Fla. Young Men's Christian Ass'n, Inc., 228 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 2017)…review the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Worley v. Central Florida Young Men’s Christian Ass’n, Inc., 163 So. 3d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015), in which the district court certified conflict with Burt v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 603 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), regarding whether the attorney-client privilege protects a party from being required to disclose that his or her attorney referred the party to a physician for treatment. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. F…
-
Coffey-Garcia v. S. Miami Hosp., Inc., 194 So. 3d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…e [attorney-client] privilege: for the fact of consultation or employ-ment_” Greenberg Traurig Hoffman Lipoff Rosen & Quentel v. Bolton, 706 So. 2d 97, 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), (quotations and citations omitted); see also Burt v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., 603 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (holding, in a personal injury case, that a question asking a plaintiff when she obtained counsel for the case did not violate the attorney-client privilege). There are, of course, exceptions to this [*538] general rule in which t…
-
Worley v. Cent. Fla. Young Men's Christian Ass'n, Inc., 163 So. 3d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…end or relative. There is no indication that any other witness would have such knowledge. Thus, in order to establish that a referral has occurred, YMCA had no choice but to ask Worley herself. See id. In Burt v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 603 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), the Second District Court held that the question, “[D]id counsel refer her to a particular physician[?]” sought “discovery of confidential communications constituting her attorney’s advice regarding this lawsuit.” 603 So. 2d at 1…1 / 2
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
- Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (U.S. 1981)