PARACELSUS SANTA ROSA MEDICAL CENTER, ETC., PETITIONER,
v.
PEGGY M. SMITH AND JAMES SMITH, SR., 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.
Paracelsus Santa Rosa Medical Center challenged a discovery order requiring production of staff privileges and employment records of two doctors from their professional association in a medical malpractice case. The court held that while applications for staff privileges can be obtained from the doctors themselves, the staff privileges files are protected by peer review privilege and require in camera inspection to determine what materials qualify for protection.
Applications for staff privileges may be obtained directly from the doctors, but staff privileges files are protected by peer review privilege under Florida Statutes sections 766.101(5) and 395.011. The trial court should conduct an in camera inspection to determine which materials in the staff privileges files are covered by the peer review privilege and which are not.
[1] Documents considered by a peer review committee or board as part of its decision-making process are protected from discovery.
[2] A doctor's application for staff privileges is considered a record of the peer review committee for purposes of the statutory privilege.
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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes that while applications are committee records, they remain obtainable from the source doctor
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. King performed surgery on plaintiff Smith, allegedly causing injuries that led to a medical malpractice suit. The plaintiff served discovery on th…
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 Peer Review Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
Paracelsus Santa Rosa Medical Center, d/b/a Peninsula Medical Center (Peninsula) petitions for certiorari review of the trial court’s order which denied Peninsula’s motion for a protective order in a medical malpractice suit. The discovery order requires a co-defendant doctor’s professional association to produce documents relating to staff privileges and employment records of two doctors in the professional association (Dr. Evans and Dr. Marshall). Dr. King performed the surgery on the plaintiff, Smith, which allegedly caused the injuries involved in this suit. We grant the writ in part.
The notice served on the professional association sought the following:
The full and complete files maintained by Evans, Marshall & King, D.O., P.A., regarding Richard D. Evans, D.L. and Keith N. Marshall, D.O., including but not limited to their employment files, their personnel files, their staff privileges file, certifications, applications for privileges to area hospitals, CME’s, etc.
Peninsula filed a motion for protective order asserting the privilege over documents relating to staff privileges and credentialing pursuant to sections 395.019(8) and 766.101(5), Florida Statutes. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that the documents were requested from the original source, not the hospital, and therefore they are not immune from discovery.
Sections 766.101(5) and 395.011, Florida Statutes, protect documents considered by a peer review committee or board as part of its decision-making process. A doctor’s applications for staff privileges is a record of the committee for purposes of the statutory privilege. Cruger v. Love, 599 So. 2d 111 (Fla.1992). However, the court in Cruger noted that a plaintiff could obtain a copy of the application for privileges from the doctor. Thus that part of the discovery order is proper. However, the plaintiffs request for the staff privileges files might encroach on the peer review privilege because some of the documents in the file logically will have been provided to the doctor by Peninsula. The privilege continues even though Peninsula has provided copies of privileged documents to non-committee doctors. See Columbia Park Medical Center v. Gibbs, 728 So. 2d 373, 1999 WL 162141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (GIBBS II); Columbia Park Medical Center v. Gibbs, 723 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (Gibbs I); Munroe Regional Medical Center v. Rountree, 721 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). See also, Boca Raton Community Hospital v. Jones, 584 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Love v. Cruger, 570 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), approved, 599 So. 2d 111 (Fla.1992). If there is a question as to whether the staff-privileges files contain materials not covered by the privilege, the trial court should hold an in camera inspection to determine whether they are protected by the peer review documents privilege.
Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash that portion of the discovery order relating to the order to produce the staff privilege files.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari GRANTED in part; DENIED in part.
COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cape Canaveral Hosp., Inc. v. Jorge J. Leal, M.D., 917 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…o whether certain discovery is protected by the peer review privilege, the trial court should hold an in camera inspection to determine if the materials are protected prior to compelling discovery. See Best; Paracelsus Santa Rosa Med. Ctr. v. Smith, 732 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). The issue raised in the instant petition is whether an order, that only requires a party to submit allegedly protected materials for an in camera inspection, is ripe for certiorari review when the order does not yet require (and…
-
Bayfront Med. Ctr., Inc. v. State, 741 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…ss. We are not persuaded to do otherwise. See Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217 (Fla.1984); Cruger v. Love, 599 So. 2d 111 (Fla.1992); All Children’s Hosp., Inc. v. Davis, 590 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Paracelsus Santa Rosa Medical Center v. Smith, 732 So. 2d 49, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Munroe Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Rountree, 721 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Variety Children’s Hosp. v. Mishler, 670 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Century Medical Centers, Inc. v. Marin, 686…
-
Brandon Reg'l Hosp. v. Murray, 957 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 2007)…ss. We are not persuaded to do otherwise. See Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217 (Fla.1984); Cruger v. Love, 599 So. 2d 111 (Fla.1992); All Children’s Hosp., Inc. v. Davis, 590 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Paracelsus Santa Rosa Medical Center v. Smith, 732 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Munroe Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Rountree, 721 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Variety Children's Hosp. v. Mishler, 670 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Century Medical Centers, Inc. v. Marin, 686 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1…
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
- Parrado v. State, 599 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1992)
- Elois Posey Cruger v. Douglas J. Love, M.D., 599 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1992)
- Boca Raton Cmty. Hosp. v. Jones, 584 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Love v. Cruger, 570 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Columbia Park Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Gibbs, 723 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Munroe Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Rountree, 721 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Rubel v. Moore, 728 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)