RONALD JAMES, PETITIONER,
v.
CASSONDRA VENEZIANO, 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.
In a personal injury automobile negligence case, the defendant sought to quash a discovery order requiring him to respond to interrogatories and produce ten years of medical records. The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted the writ of certiorari, finding that the trial court failed to conduct an in camera examination of the records before ordering disclosure of materials protected by the defendant's constitutional right to privacy.
The court held that when a party asserts a constitutional right to privacy in medical records, the trial court must conduct an in camera examination to determine relevance before ordering disclosure. The court found that medical records relating to the defendant's current ability to recall events from the accident appear relevant, but the full scope of relevant records can be determined only after in camera review and argument by the parties.
[1] A writ of certiorari is appropriate when an order departs from the essential requirements of law and causes irreparable harm not remediable on appeal.
[2] Discovery orders concerning materials implicating a party's constitutional right to privacy justify a finding of irreparable harm not curable on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“when a party challenges a discovery order concerning material to which the party asserts his or her constitutional right to privacy, the trial court must conduct an in camera examination to determine the relevance of the materials to the issues raised or implicated by the lawsuit”
Establishes the core legal requirement that trial courts must privately review discovery materials claimed to be protected by constitutional privacy before ordering disclosure
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 sued the defendant for negligence after the defendant's vehicle struck the rear of the plaintiff's vehicle. The defendant had previously…
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 In Camera Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant in a personal injury action seeks a writ of certiorari as to an order directing him to respond to interrogatories and produce medical records going back ten years. The defendant asserted a right to privacy in the medical records, and requests the order be quashed in its entirety, based on this Court’s decision in McEnany v. Ryan, 44 So.3d 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). We grant the petition for writ of certiorari, and remand the matter to the trial court for reconsideration.
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging the defendant was negligent in driving his vehicle into the rear end of plaintiffs vehicle. The plaintiff had braked her vehicle due to an emergency vehicle unexpectedly entering the intersection. The defendant admitted in pretrial interrogatories that he had suffered dementia and brain tumors sometime prior to the date of the accident, but he disclaimed any such infirmities at that time. When defense counsel subsequently cancelled a scheduled pretrial deposition due to the defendant presumably suffering a stroke, the plaintiff moved the trial court to order the defendant to both answer further interrogatories, and to allow respondent to subpoena medical and other records concerning the defendant’s health for the last ten years. After a hearing, the trial court granted the plaintiffs request, issuing an order directing the defendant to comply within thirty days. The defendant then sought certiorari relief in this court.
To be entitled to issuance of a writ of certiorari, the defendant must show irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on plenary review. Additionally it must be established that the order departed from the essential requirements of law. Williams v. Oken, 62 So.3d 1129, 1132 (Fla.2011); Katzman v. Rediron Fabrication, Inc., 76 So.3d 1060, 1062 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Where, as here, the opposing party to a lawsuit seeks medical or other records implicating the constitutionally-recognized right to privacy, a finding of irreparable harm not curable on appeal is justified. Friedman v. Heart Inst, of Port St. Lucie, Inc., 863 So.2d 189, 194 (Fla.0003). Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s request for writ of certiorari.
We find the order departed from the essential requirements of law because when a party challenges a discovery order concerning material to which the party asserts his or her constitutional right to privacy, the trial court must conduct an in camera examination to determine the relevance of the materials to the issues raised or implicated by the lawsuit. Bergmann v. Freda, 829 So.2d 966, 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); see also Friedman, 863 So.2d at 194.
Based on the pleadings and course of discovery, the portion of the petitioner’s medical records relating to his current ability to recall events from the accident *699appears to be relevant. See Clampitt v. D.J. Spencer Sales, 786 So.2d 570, 578, 575 (Fla.2001); Eppler v. Tarmac Am., Inc., 752 So.2d 592, 595-96 (Fla.2000); Bridges v. Speer, 79 So.2d 679, 681 (Fla.1955); Sorel v. Koonce, 53 So.3d 1225, 1227-28 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Abreu v. F.E. Dev. Recycling, Inc., 35 So.3d 968, 969 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). However, the full extent to which the medical records are relevant can be determined only after the trial court examines the records in camera and allows the parties to argue relevance at a new hearing. McEnany, 44 So.3d at 247-48. The trial court’s order must also provide for limited access to the records disclosed so as to protect petitioner’s constitutional and statutory rights to privacy of the records. See Estate of Carrillo v. F.D.I.C., 2012 WL 1831596, at *4 (S.D.Fla.2012).
Petition granted; order vacated; and case remanded with directions to conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
MAY, C.J., GROSS and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Poston v. Wiggins, 112 So. 3d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…. Fla. Blood Serv., Inc., 500 So. 2d 533, 535 (Fla.1987)). Certiorari may be appropriate where a discovery order compels disclosure of medical or other records that infringe upon a party’s constitutional privacy rights. See e.g., James v. Veneziano, 98 So. 3d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (granting a certiorari petition and quashing the trial court’s order that compelled discovery of 10 years’ worth of medical records on the grounds that irreparable harm was established by the implication of the constitutionally-r…
-
Camilla B. Zarzaur v. Zarzaur, 213 So. 3d 1115 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…rroneous disclosure of medical records qualifies as irremediable harm. Scully v. Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc., 128 So. 3d 986, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (citing Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995); James v. Veneziano, 98 So. 3d 697, 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)). Facts and Procedural History. Upon filing for dissolution in 2012, the parties agreed to 50/50 timesharing of their minor child, born in 2008. The parties maintained 50/50 timesharing until February of 2015, when Husband…
-
Scully v. Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc., 128 So. 3d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…tutory privileges, this court has jurisdiction to review the order because the harm caused by the erroneous production of such records cannot be remedied on appeal. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla.1995); James v. Veneziano, 98 So. 3d 697, 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). However, relief is warranted only if the order departs from the essential requirements of the law. See Mullins v. Tompkins, 15 So. 3d 798, 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Scully first contends that the trial court departed from t…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Williams v. Keith Robinson Oken, M.D., 62 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 2011)
- Kenneth Friedman, M.D. v. Heart Inst. OF Port ST. Lucie, Inc., 863 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2003)
- Colletta P. Clampitt v. D.J. Spencer Sales, 786 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 2001)
- Bergen v. Wyett Shultz, 79 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1955)
- Eppler v. Tarmac Am., Inc., 752 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2000)
- Bridges v. Speer, 79 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1955)
- Scott Katzman, M.D. & Advanced Orthopaedics, P.A. v. Rediron Fabrication, Inc., 76 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- McENANY v. Ryan, 44 So. 3d 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Deidra Bergmann, D.O. v. Freda, 829 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Sorel v. Koonce, 53 So. 3d 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)