SUSAN WEBB, PETITIONER,
v.
DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., 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.
The appellate court quashed an order compelling the production of psychiatric records for in camera inspection. The court held that the psychotherapist-patient privilege was violated because the plaintiff had not claimed mental anguish damages and had renounced such claims.
Yes, the trial court erred. The psychotherapist-patient privilege was violated by the order compelling production of the records for in camera inspection because the plaintiff had not placed her mental condition at issue.
[1] A plaintiff's unequivocal renunciation of a claim for mental anguish or pain and suffering negates the necessity for production of psychiatric records.
[2] The psychotherapist-patient privilege may not be violated, even by requiring in camera inspection, when the patient has not placed their mental condition at issue.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Because the plaintiff did not plead and has otherwise unequivocally renounced any claim for mental anguish or mental pain and suffering arising from the accident in issue, the trial court order requiring that her psychiatric records be produced for its in camera inspection ran directly afoul of the psychotherapist-patient privilege created by section 90.503, Florida Statutes (2007), and therefore must be quashed.”
This quote establishes the core reasoning for quashing the trial court's order, highlighting the violation of the psychotherapist-patient privilege due to the plaintiff's lack of a mental anguish claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, Susan Webb, sought damages for an accident. The trial court ordered her psychiatric records to be produced for an in camera inspection.…
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 Mental Anguish Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
Because the plaintiff did not plead and has otherwise unequivocally renounced any claim for mental anguish or mental pain and suffering arising from the accident in issue, the trial court order requiring that her psychiatric records be produced for its in camera inspection ran directly afoul of the psychotherapist-patient privilege created by section 90.503, Florida Statutes (2007), and therefore must be quashed. See Bandorf v. Volusia County Dep’t of Corr., 939 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Garbacik v. Wal-Mart Transp., LLC, 932 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Kelley, 903 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Byxbee v. Reyes, 850 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Partner-Brown v. Bornstein, 734 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); cf. Scheff v. Mayo, 645 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (granting certiorari to quash an order denying discovery of plaintiffs psychiatric records when plaintiff sought damages for mental anguish).
See generally State v. Famiglietti, 817 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (en banc) (applicable privilege may not be violated even by requiring in camera in spection), review dismissed, 838 So. 2d 528 (Fla.2003); Pauker v. Olson, 834 So. 2d 198, 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“[I]n order to obtain in camera review of petitioner’s mental health records, respondent must first establish that petitioner has placed his mental condition at issue.”); State v. Pinder, 678 So. 2d 410, 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (“Even in camera disclosure to the trial judge (and to court reporters, appellate courts and their staff) ‘intrudes on the rights of the victim and dilutes the statutory privilege.’ ” (quoting State v. J.G., 261 N.J.Super. 409, 619 A. 2d 232, 237 (1993), cert. denied, 133 N.J. 436, 627 A. 2d 1142 (1993))); Cebrian v. Klein, 614 So. 2d 1209, 1210-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (certiorari lies to quash an order compelling an in camera inspection which is “neither necessary nor appropriate to determine whether a report is entitled to the protection of the statute”).
Certiorari granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- State v. Pinder, 678 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- State v. Famiglietti, 817 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Cebrian v. Robert Klein, M.D., 614 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Sherron Partner-Brown v. Bornstein, 734 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Harold and Sara Scheff v. Mayo, 645 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Garbacik v. Wal-Mart Transp., LLC, 932 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Byxbee v. Placido Rocha Reyes, 850 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Famiglietti v. State, 838 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 2003)
- Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Kester Ray Kelley, Jr., 903 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Bandorf v. Volusia Cnty. Dep't OF Corr. & Cnty. of Volusia, 939 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)