SHERRON PARTNER-BROWN, PETITIONER,
v.
MARK BORNSTEIN, D.P.M., 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.
A plaintiff in a medical malpractice action challenged a discovery order requiring production of her psychiatric records. The court held that merely alleging loss of enjoyment of life without explicitly claiming mental anguish does not waive the psychotherapist-patient privilege under Florida law, and reversed the discovery order.
The court held that loss of enjoyment of life, without more, does not place the patient's mental or emotional condition at issue so as to waive the psychotherapist-patient privilege. The privilege exception applies only when mental anguish is actually pled as an element of the claim or defense.
[1] A patient's psychiatric records are protected from discovery by the psychotherapist-patient privilege unless the patient places their mental or emotional condition at iss…
[2] Allegations of "great pain and suffering" and "loss of the enjoyment of life" in a complaint do not, without more, place a plaintiff's mental or emotional condition at is…
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“A patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, confidential communications or records made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the patient's mental or emotional condition”
Establishes the foundational psychotherapist-patient privilege under Florida Statute section 90.503
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSherron Partner-Brown filed a medical malpractice action against podiatrist Mark Bornstein seeking damages for pain and suffering and loss of enjoymen…
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 Loss Of Enjoyment Of Life cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, J.
The petitioner, Sherron Partner-Brown, seeks certiorari review of a trial court discovery order requiring the production of her psychiatric records. This arises in the context of a malpractice action wherein she, as plaintiff, is seeking recovery for various elements of damages including “great pain and suffering” and the loss of the “enjoyment of life.” The complaint does not include a claim for “mental anguish.” She asserts that her psychiatric records are protected from discovery by section 90.503, Florida Statutes (1997), which provides in relevant part:
A patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from .disclosing, confidential communications or records made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s mental or emotional condition, including alcoholism and other drug addiction, between the patient and the psychotherapist, or persons who are participating in the diagnosis or treatment under the direction of the psychotherapist. This privilege includes any diagnosis made, and advice given, by the psychotherapist in the course of that relationship.
This statutes further provides:
There is no privilege under this section for communications relevant to an issue of the mental or emotional condition of the patient in any proceeding in which the patient relies upon the condition as an element of his or her claim or defense, or after the patient’s death, in any proceeding in which any party relies upon the condition as an element of the parties’ claim or defense.
The respondent, Mark Bornstein, a podiatrist, persuaded the trial court that Partner-Brown had placed her mental or emotional state at issue because of the reference in the complaint to loss of “enjoyment of life” and relied upon our prior opinion in Nelson v. Womble, 657 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). In that case we allowed discovery of mental health records— but there we were dealing with a specific allegation that mental anguish was inflicted, which is not true in the instant case. The allusion to loss of enjoyment of life, without more, does not place the mental or emotional condition of the plaintiff at issue so as to waive the protection of section 90.503.
If we were to adopt the position asserted here by the respondent, it would render the above statute a nullity and inject the issue of mental anguish into virtually every personal injury case. That is not the law and it is not what we held in Nelson. It should be apparent that physical pain and suffering, absent mental anguish, can impair the enjoyment of life. If mental anguish is not pled, evidence thereof is inadmissible at trial— and discovery directed to it is not available to the defense. See Weinstock v. Groth, 659 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the discovery order issued by the trial court in respect to the psychiatric records of the petitioner. PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.
W. SHARP and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Olges v. Dougherty, 856 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…ere, once Mr. Olges abandoned his original efforts to recover damages for mental anguish, emotional distress and other emotional damages, his mental condition ceased to be “in controversy” as contemplated by the rule. See Partner-Brown v. Bornstein, 734 So. 2d 555, 556 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Dr. Shahnasarian’s testimony did not establish otherwise. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.360(a)(1) (“A party may request any other party to submit to ... [a mental] examination ... when the condition that is the subject of the reque…
-
Garbacik v. Wal-Mart Transp., LLC, 932 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…90.503 would be useless. Moreover, we have previously rejected the argument that a patient places his or her mental or emotional state at issue because of the reference in the complaint to loss of “enjoyment of life.” In Partner-Brown v. Bornstein, 734 So. 2d 555, 556 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), for example, this Court stated: The allusion to loss of enjoyment of life, without more, does not place the mental or emotional condition of the plaintiff at issue so as to waive the protection of section 90.503. If we we…
-
Byxbee v. Placido Rocha Reyes, 850 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…bee withdrew his claim for mental anguish. A claim for loss of enjoyment of life, “without more, does not place the mental or emotional condition of the plaintiff at issue so as to waive the protection of section 90.503.” Partner-Brown v. Bornstein, 734 So. 2d 555, 556 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). The records of Columbia Hospital fall within the privilege of section 90.503. That the records contain information pertaining to physical examinations during hospital admissions does not remove the records from the privileg…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nelson v. Womble, 657 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Baker v. State, 659 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Ronda C. Weinstock, Ph.D. v. Groth, 659 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)