TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS, INC., D/B/A DELRAY MEDICAL CENTER, PETITIONERS,
v.
GISELA TAITEL AND MICHAEL TAITEL, HER HUSBAND, 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.
Tenet Healthcare System sought certiorari review of an order compelling production of blank hospital forms used to test nurse competency in sedation and analgesia administration. The court held that blank peer review test forms are protected by Florida's peer review privilege statute because they are integral to the peer review process, even though they contain no completed answers.
The court held that blank peer review test forms are protected by the statutory peer review privilege. Interpreting the statute broadly in light of legislative intent to protect the confidentiality necessary for effective peer review, the court concluded that 'investigations, proceedings, and records' includes blank test forms used by hospitals to engage in peer review and evaluation of nurses.
[1] Blank forms used for testing the competency of nurses are protected by the statutory peer review privilege.
[2] The statutory peer review privilege is construed broadly to protect the integrity of the peer review process.
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“The discovery privilege ... was clearly designed to provide that degree of confidentiality necessary for the full, frank medical peer evaluation which the legislature sought to encourage.”
Establishes the core purpose of the peer review privilege and legislative intent to protect confidentiality in peer evaluation processes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA medical malpractice case involved allegations of negligence in administering sedation and analgesia. The trial court ordered the hospital to produce…
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 Medical Malpractice cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Petitioner hospital is a defendant in a medical malpractice case seeking certiorari review of an order Compelling production of a blank hospital form used for testing the competency of nurses. We grant the petition because the test is protected by the statutory peer review privilege.
The claim of malpractice includes negligence in administering sedation and analgesia, and the trial court ordered production of the hospital’s forms used for testing and evaluating the competency of nurses in regard to sedation and analgesia. These forms were created by a hospital committee for the purpose of quality assurance and peer review. The hospital objected on the ground that these forms are privileged under section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (2002). Cruger v. Love, 599 So. 2d 111 (Fla.1992) (documents created or considered by hospital peer review and credentialing committees are privileged).
Plaintiffs do not dispute the fact that if these test forms had been filled out they would be privileged, but argue that because they are blank they contain no peer review information. Plaintiffs seek these forms in order to see what the hospital deemed important in testing the competency of nurses and to have experts review the hospital’s testing procedures. Whether the blank forms constitute “the investigations, proceedings, and records” of a medical review committee under section 766.101(5), is a question of first impression.
Florida courts have construed the statutory privilege broadly in order to protect the integrity of the peer review process. Bayfront Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Agency for Healthcare Admin., 741 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) and cases cited. This is apparent from Cruger in which our supreme court cited Byrd v. Richardson-Greenshields Securities, Inc., 552 So. 2d 1099 (Fla.1989) for the proposition that courts are obligated to carry out legislative intent and policy even where doing so exceeds the literal language of the statute.
The hospital argues that these forms are the hospital’s method for engaging in peer review, and that the process of evaluation should be just as confidential as the answers given to the questions asked. On the other hand, plaintiffs argue that these forms could provide information which is relevant to their claim. In Cruger, our supreme court stated:
The statutes do not define what constitutes records of a committee or board. Therefore, we must look to the legislative intent and policy behind the statutes to determine the extent of the privilege .... We have previously held that “[t]he discovery privilege ... was clearly designed to provide that degree of confidentiality necessary for the full, frank medical peer evaluation which the legislature sought to encourage.” Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d at 220 [(Fla.1984)]. Without the privilege, information necessary to the peer review process could not be obtained. Feldman v. Glucroft, 522 So. 2d 798, 801 (Fla.1988). While we recognized in Holly that the discovery 'privilege would impinge upon the rights of litigants to obtain information helpful or even essential to their cases, we assumed that the legislature balanced that against the benefits offered by effective self-policing by the medical community, [emphasis added.]
Cruger, 599 So. 2d at 113-14.
In light of the emphasized language in Cruger, we conclude that, interpreting the statute broadly, “investigations, proceedings, and records” includes the blank test forms which this hospital uses to engage in peer review and evaluation of these nurses. We accordingly grant the petition.
GUNTHER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
W. Fla. Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. SEE, 79 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2012)…ppeal in West Florida Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. See, 18 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), asserting that it expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Tenet Healthsystem Hospitals, Inc. v. Taitel, 855 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Facts In August 2003, Lynda See complained of pain in her abdominal area during a consultation with her general physician. The general…1 / 2
-
Fla. Hosp. Waterman, Inc. v. Buster, 932 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…provide that degree of confidentiality necessary for the full, frank medical peer evaluation which the legislature [has] sought to encourage.1 ”) (quoting Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217, 219-20 (Fla.1984)); Tenet Healthsystem Hosps., Inc. v. Taitel, 855 So. 2d 1257, 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (same); Beverly Enters.-Fla., Inc. v. Ives, 832 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), review denied, 845 So. 2d 890 (Fla.2003); Miami Heart Inst. v. Reis, 638 So. 2d 530, 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) ("The constancy of the privilege [a…
-
W. Fla. Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. SEE, 18 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…r medical staff privileges. In analyzing this issue, we must determine whether the blank application form is statutorily protected, and if so, whether Amendment 7 abrogates that statutory protection. In Tenet Healthsystem Hospitals, Inc. v. Taitel, 855 So. 2d 1257, 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), the Fourth District considered whether “a blank hospital form used for testing the competency of nurses” was protected by section 766.101(5). Observing that the requested forms were “created by a hospital committee for the…
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
- Byrd v. Richardson-Greenshields Sec., Inc., 552 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 1989)
- Feldman v. Stephen Glucroft, M.D., 522 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1988)
- Parrado v. State, 599 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1992)
- Elois Posey Cruger v. Douglas J. Love, M.D., 599 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1992)
- Bayfront Med. Ctr., Inc. v. State, 741 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)