THOMAS J. PUSATERI, M.D., AND FLORIDA EYE CENTER, SEVER & RAMSUER, P.A., PETITIONERS,
v.
ANNA FERNANDEZ, AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF KARINA FERNANDEZ, A MINOR, AND ANNA FERNANDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY, 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 reversed a discovery order requiring an ophthalmologist and his employer to produce medical records of all patients treated for specific conditions during a three-year period in a medical malpractice case. The court held that respondents failed to establish the relevance of the requested documents under the standards set forth in Amente v. Newman.
The court held that the discovery order should be quashed because the respondents failed to establish that the requested documents were relevant to any pending claim or defense, and the record did not support their production under the standards set forth in Amente v. Newman.
[1] Discovery requests must be denied when the information sought is neither relevant to any pending claim or defense nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible eviden…
[2] A party's mere denial of allegations in a complaint and assertion of affirmative defenses does not, in itself, justify discovery of unrelated patient records.
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“Discovery should be denied when it has been established that the information requested is neither relevant to any pending claim or defense nor will it lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
States the governing standard for when discovery must be denied
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondents filed a medical malpractice action against petitioners, an ophthalmologist and the entity employing him, alleging negligent failure to tim…
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 Admissible Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
Petitioners seek certiorari review of an order compelling them to produce certain documents. We grant the petition and quash the order. Respondents filed a medical malpractice action alleging that petitioners, the ophthalmologist who performed the eye surgery and the entity for whom he was an agent or employee, negligently failed to timely evaluate and treat complications from the surgery. Respondents served their complaint with a discovery request seeking production of all records regarding all patients that petitioners saw during the years 1992 through 1997 whose diagnosis or treatment included one of six items listed. The request allowed petitioners to redact all patient identifying data from the files produced. After a hearing on petitioners’ objections to the discovery, the trial court ordered production of the documents, but shortened the applicable time period to three years.
Respondents rely upon Amente v. Newman, 653 So. 2d 1030 (Fla.1995), to support their assertion that the documents requested are relevant to notice, causation, and impeachment. In Amente, the doctor being sued for malpractice stated that he had followed the same delivery method for his morbidly obese obstetrical patients for some time without complication and that he did not believe his method caused the injury. Id. at 1032-33. The plaintiff suggested that if the doctor had not used the same method with similar patients or if others had suffered injury when the doctor had used the same method, then the information would be relevant to show causation, to show the doctor had notice that the method was deficient, or for impeachment. Id. The supreme court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering discovery regarding the doctor’s treatment of similarly obese obstetrical patients under the circumstances described. Id. at 1033.
Discovery should be denied when it has been established that the information requested is neither relevant to any pending claim or defense nor will it lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla.1995); Richard Mulholland & Assocs. v. Polverari, 698 So. 2d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Petitioners in this ease have made no statements such as those made by the doctor in Amente, but have merely denied the allegations in the complaint and asserted affirmative defenses. Although respondents may be able to justify access to the documents later in the litigation, the record at this time fails to support their production. See Tampa Pipeline Corp. v. CF Indus., Inc., 693 So. 2d 580, 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
Accordingly, we grant the petition for certiorari and quash the order under review.
CAMPBELL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Poston v. Wiggins, 112 So. 3d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…ed damages as a result of this negligence. Unlike the pre-accident pharmacy records which may be relevant, the post-accident medical records are entirely irrelevant and an in camera review on remand would serve no purpose. See Pusateri v. Fernandez, 707 So. 2d 892, 893 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (“Discovery should be denied when it has been established that the information requested is neither relevant to any pending claim or defense nor will it lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”). Accordingly, we grant t…
-
Nancy A. Tanchel, M.D. v. Shoemaker, 928 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…t the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering discovery regarding the doctor’s treatment of similarly obese obstetrical patients under the circumstances described in the plaintiffs complaint. Id. at 1033; see also Pusateri v. Fernandez, 707 So. 2d 892, 893 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). That general rule notwithstanding, discovery should be denied when it has been established that the information requested is neither relevant to any pending claim or defense nor will it lead to the discovery of admissible e…
-
Graham v. Dacheikh, 991 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…se medical records. We recognize that discovery does not need to focus on admissible evidence, but normally it should be “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(1); Pusateri v. Fernandez, 707 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (quashing a discovery request for medical records that appeared irrelevant to the issues in the litigation). From the record, it appears that the request involves medical records of more than one hundred patients claiming to suffe…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
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1995)
- Bernadette Amente v. Willie B. Newman, M.D., 653 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 1995)
- Tampa Pipeline Corp. v. CF Indus., Inc., 693 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Richard Mulholland & Assocs. v. Polverari, 698 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Marlow v. State, 698 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)