LEE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
Lee County appealed a writ of mandamus requiring it to release emergency medical services records without requiring a notarized signature on consent forms. The court held that the writ was improperly issued because the County's duty to protect confidential medical records is discretionary, not ministerial, and the notarization requirement is a reasonable safeguard.
The writ of mandamus was improperly issued and is quashed. The County's duty to protect the confidentiality of medical records involves discretionary functions, not merely ministerial ones, and the notarization requirement is a reasonable measure to ensure proper consent before release of confidential records.
[1] A writ of mandamus may not be used to compel a public agency to perform an act that requires discretion.
[2] A public agency has a legal duty to protect the confidentiality of patient examination or treatment information contained in emergency medical records.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“[r]ec-ords of emergency calls that contain patient examination or treatment information are confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) [public records act] and shall not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for confidentiality of emergency medical records under section 401.30(3), Florida Statutes
Previewing 1 of 4 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLee County's Tax Collector's Office is custodian of emergency medical services records. State Farm sought a writ of mandamus to compel the County to r…
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 Writ Of Mandamus Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
Lee County appeals the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus that requires it to release emergency medical services records in a particular manner. We agree with the County that the writ was improperly issued and, accordingly, quash the writ of mandamus.
The Lee County Tax Collector’s Office is the custodian of records prepared by Lee County Medical Services. Pursuant to section 401.30(3), Florida Statutes (1991), “[r]ec-ords of emergency calls that contain patient examination or treatment information are confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) [public records act] and shall not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain.” The clear purpose of the statute is to maintain the confidentiality of the medical records.
In order to fulfill its responsibilities under this section, the County implemented a procedure to ensure that these confidential records were not improperly released. The County’s policy requires the patient’s notarized signature on all release forms. State Farm objected to the requirement of a notarized signature and sought a writ of mandamus. State Farm argued a notarized consent form was not required because it was not dictated by section 401.30. The trial court agreed and issued the writ requiring the County to release emergency medical records upon receipt of a signed, not nota rized, release by the patient and the payment of a reasonable photocopying fee.
A writ of mandamus is used to enforce an established legal right by compelling a public officer or agency to perform a duty required by law. Before the court may issue a writ of mandamus, it must be shown that there is a clear legal right on the part of the petitioner and that there is an indisputable legal duty on the part of the respondent. See Fraternal Order of Police v. Odio, 491 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 500 So. 2d 544 (Fla.1986). It is fundamental to the writ that the legal duty of the public agency must be ministerial in nature and not discretionary. Holland v. Wainwright, 499 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Mandamus was inappropriately issued in this ease because the act involved requires discretion. The County is statutorily required to protect the confidentiality of the records. We conclude it is reasonable for the County to ensure proper consent before the records are released. This necessarily involves more than a mere ministerial function. The County’s requirement is not unreasonable or onerous. The County is merely protecting the confidentiality that has been entrusted to it by the public.
Accordingly, having determined the writ of mandamus was wrongly issued, we quash the writ.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Gallagher v. Dupont, 918 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…rro v. Boujfard, 522 So. 2d 515, 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (holding mandamus is the proper, and indeed the only, vehicle for enforcing judgment against a governmental entity). The Fund, citing Lee County v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 634 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), argues that, before a court may issue writ of mandamus, it must be shown that the petitioner has a clear legal right on the part of the petitioner and the respondent has an indisputable legal duty. However, in this case, once the…
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Trapeo, 136 So. 3d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…t by law. See Polley v. Gardner, 98 So. 3d 648, 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (granting petition for writ of mandamus where statute governing confirmation of arbitration award contained mandatory language); cf. Lee Cnty. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 634 So. 2d 250, 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (quashing writ of mandamus where action required discretion). Section 627.7074(10) is a dictate. And it provides a clear legal right as well as a duty. See Woodland v. Lindsey, 586 So. 2d 1255, 1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). The…
-
WFTV, Inc. v. The Sch. Bd. OF Seminole, 874 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…information is made confidential in the statutes, the information is not subject to inspection by the public and may only be released to the persons or organizations designated in the statute. In Lee Cownty v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 634 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), a county policy requiring notarized signature on all release forms was determined a valid means of protecting records made confidential by the Legislature. In Alice P. v. Miami Daily News, Inc., 440 So. 2d [*54] 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bush Wade Holland v. L.L. Wainwright, 499 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- State v. Perez, 491 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Fraternal Order OF Police v. Odio, 491 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)