AUGUST URBANEK, PETITIONER,
v.
GERALD URBANEK, COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, AND PHILIP W. HOPKINS, AS TRUSTEE, 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.
August Urbanek sought a writ of certiorari to quash a trial court's denial of his motion for protective order that would prevent his psychologist from being deposed regarding an affidavit. The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that petitioner's withdrawal of the affidavit revoked any initial waiver of the psychotherapist-patient privilege, and granted the petition.
The court held that any initial waiver of the psychotherapist-patient privilege was revoked when petitioner withdrew the affidavit, because the affidavit was submitted in response to collateral issues and was not tied to petitioner's answer, affirmative defenses, or counterclaim in the underlying indemnification action.
[1] A psychotherapist-patient privilege is waived when the patient submits an affidavit from the psychotherapist, but the waiver can be revoked if the affidavit is subsequent…
[2] Withdrawal of an affidavit submitted in response to a collateral issue revokes any prior waiver of the psychotherapist-patient privilege, absent a showing that the affida…
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Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We hold that any initial waiver of the privilege was revoked when petitioner withdrew the affidavit.”
The court's holding that withdrawal of the affidavit revokes the waiver of psychotherapist-patient privilege.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner August Urbanek is involved in litigation concerning an irrevocable trust against respondents Gerald Urbanek, Commercial Management Corporat…
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 Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
August Urbanek seeks a writ of certio-rari quashing the denial of his motion for protective order. The petition was timely filed.
At the heart of the proceedings below is petitioner’s irrevocable trust. Many causes of action involving many parties have been alleged and dismissed. As it currently stands, the lawsuit involves claims against petitioner for indemnification by respondent Gerald Urbanek, Commercial Management Corporation and the trustee, Philip Hopkins.
Petitioner asserted the psychotherapist-patient privilege to prevent respondent(s) from deposing his psychologist who had previously furnished the court with an affidavit. See § 90.503, Fla. Stat. (2009). When denying the motion for protective order, the court ordered that the psychologist could be deposed, and that during that deposition he “shall disclose the facts, communications, and records” surrounding the creation and the content of the affidavit.
The affidavit was offered by petitioner and authored by his clinical psychologist. It was furnished in response to respondent’s position that petitioner was being purposely isolated and sequestered in an effort to frustrate discovery and avoid certain meetings. Through the affidavit, petitioner’s psychologist addressed the “isolation” theory based on his evaluation of petitioner and the family dynamics.
Petitioner subsequently withdrew the affidavit. Respondent’s position is that the any privilege was waived and the waiver cannot be revoked. See § 90.507, Fla. Stat. (2009).
We grant the petition and quash the order. We hold that any initial waiver of the privilege was revoked when petitioner withdrew the affidavit. See Garbacik v. Wal-Mart Transp. LLC., 932 So.2d 500, 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Kelley, 903 So.2d 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Cohen v. Cohen, 813 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Sykes By & *1237 Through Sykes v. St. Andrews Sch., 619 So.2d 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Petitioner submitted the affidavit in response to an affidavit submitted by Gerald Urbanek in connection with issues which were, and remain, collateral to the underlying indemnification claim. Also, respondent has not demonstrated that the substance of the affidavit is tied to petitioner’s answer, affirmative defenses or counterclaim. Compare H.J.M. v. B.R.C., 603 So.2d 1331, 1334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (citing Hamilton v. Hamilton Steel Corp., 409 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)).
Accordingly, we grant the petition for certiorari and quash the order at issue.
Petition granted.
GROSS, C.J., WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Smith, 64 So. 3d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
-
S.P. v. Anthony Vecchio & the State of Fla., 162 So. 3d 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
Authorities Cited
- Little v. State, 409 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- State v. Louttit, 409 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- H.J.M., M.D. v. B.R.C. and R.H.C., 603 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Sykes v. ST. Andrews Sch., 619 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Garbacik v. Wal-Mart Transp., LLC, 932 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Cohen v. Stanford Cohen, 813 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Kester Ray Kelley, Jr., 903 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)