STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
LEE ALAN EDWARDS, 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.
Florida appealed a trial court's suppression order excluding Edwards' medical records showing his blood alcohol level from a DUI prosecution. The appellate court reversed, holding that the state did not violate any laws by accepting medical records voluntarily provided by a private attorney, even if the attorney may have violated confidentiality statutes in disclosing them.
The state did not violate any laws by accepting the voluntarily provided medical records, and the records should not be suppressed. If a violation occurred, it was the private attorney's violation of confidentiality statutes, not the state's. The state should not be penalized for accepting gratuitously provided information from a non-agent third party.
[1] A state is not penalized for accepting gratuitous information from a private party, even if that information was obtained in violation of a statute by the private party.
[2] A private attorney, acting in the course of civil litigation, is not an agent of the state for purposes of statutory violations related to the disclosure of a patient's m…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Pittman voluntarily forwarded the records to the state attorney's office. The state committed no error in accepting the information.”
Establishes that the state's receipt of voluntarily provided records does not constitute a violation of law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdwards was involved in a traffic accident on December 13, 1991. The civil plaintiff's attorney, Pittman, obtained Edwards' medical records via subpoe…
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 Motion To Suppress cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
The state appeals from the trial court’s order which suppresses Lee Edward’s medical records. Since the state violated no laws in obtaining the medical records from a private attorney, we reverse.
On December 13, 1991, Lee Edwards was involved in a traffic accident with Lynn Keim. Ms. Keim brought a civil action against Edwards and was represented by attorney Charles Pittman. In the course of his investigation of the case, Pittman obtained Edwards’ medical records by issuing a subpoena to the medical records custodian of Tampa General Hospital. Pittman provided copies of these records to Edwards’ attorney, pursuant to section 395.3025(4)(d), Florida Statutes (Supp.1992)1.
The records showed that when Edwards was brought to the hospital after the accident, he had a blood alcohol level of .237. Pittman called the sheriffs office and advised them of Edwards’ blood alcohol level. The sheriffs office recommended that he forward the medical records showing Edwards’ blood alcohol level to the state attorney. Pittman sent a copy of the blood alcohol report to the state attorney’s office. Thereafter, the state attorney’s office asked Pittman for the remainder of the records.
On November 8, 1993, the state filed an information charging Edwards with driving under the influence causing serious bodily injury, under section 316.193(3) Florida Statutes (1991). Edwards filed a motion to suppress the medical records alleging that Pittman provided the state attorney’s office with the medical records without Edwards’ authorization in violation of section 395.3025(7), Florida Statutes (Supp.1992)2. The motion further stated that the medical records were confidential and, thus, the state was required to obtain a subpoena and provide notice to him pursuant to section 395.3025(4)(d).
At the hearing on Edwards’ motion to suppress, the trial court reasoned that after the state attorney’s intake office received the blood alcohol portion of Edwards’ medical records, the state should have sent notice to Edwards under section 395.3025(4)(d), rather than requesting the rest of the records from Pittman. The court then granted the motion to suppress. This was error. Pittman voluntarily forwarded the records to the state attorney’s office. The state committed no error in accepting the information. If there was a violation, it was Pittman who violated section 395.3025(7) by disclosing Edwards’ confidential records without Edwards’ consent. Since Pittman was not an agent of the state, the state should not be penalized for acting on the gratuitous information.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
FRANK, C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur. . Section 395.3025(4)(d) states that disclosure of confidential medical records is prohibited except by issuance of a subpoena from a court of competent jurisdiction and proper notice to the patient or his legal representative.
. Section 395.3025(7) states in part: "If the content of any record of patient treatment is provided under this section, the recipient, if other than the patient or the patient’s representative, may use such information only for the purpose provided and may not further disclose any information to any other person or entity, unless expressly permitted by the written consent of the patient."
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Codner, 696 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…per. That the photocopied rental agreement in this case landed in the hands of the Hillsbor-ough County Sheriffs Office through Dales-sandro is of no moment. See, e.g., Morales v. State, 407 So. 2d 321, 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); cf. State v. Edwards, 650 So. 2d 630, 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (state not penalized for gratuitous receipt of medical records from private attorney). The state should not be hindered in its prosecution for acceptance of a copy of [*811] a lease found in a wallet, an appropriate place to…