KRISTINA MICHELLE BRANA, ROSCOX CORPORATION, AND JORDAN GRABEL, M.D., PETITIONERS,
v.
ADOLFO ROURA, 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 Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal granted petitions for writ of certiorari to quash trial court orders that denied motions for protective orders. The court held that subpoenas seeking Dr. Grabel's patients' medical records violated patient privacy protections because respondent failed to comply with statutory notice requirements, and subpoenas seeking Dr. Grabel's expert witness compensation violated discovery rules protecting expert earnings.
The trial court erred in denying the motions for protective orders. Respondent failed to comply with the statutory notice requirements of section 456.057(7)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires notice to patients before a subpoena for their medical records is issued. Additionally, expert witness compensation is protected from disclosure under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(5)(A)(iii)4, and can only be discovered upon a showing of unusual or compelling circumstances, which the trial court did not find.
[1] A subpoena seeking patient medical records requires compliance with statutory notice provisions to patients whose records are sought.
[2] A subpoena may not be used to obtain discovery of a litigation expert's financial or business records absent unusual or compelling circumstances.
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“respondent failed to show to the trial court that he complied with the notice provisions of section 456.057(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2012), which requires notice to patients whose medical records are sought before issuance of a subpoena for the records by a court of competent jurisdiction”
Establishes the statutory requirement for patient notification before medical records can be subpoenaed, which respondent violated
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent issued subpoenas to hospitals where Dr. Grabel performed spinal surgeries seeking "each and every document" pertaining to Dr. Grabel, which…
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.
We grant the consolidated petitions for writ of certiorari, and quash the trial court’s orders denying petitioners’ motions for protective order filed on September 27 and October 2, 2013. Respondent’s subpoenas issued to hospitals where petitioner Grabel performed spinal surgeries sought “each and every document ... to include all records, pertaining to [Dr. Grabel].” As worded, the subpoenas would require the production of confidential medical records of Dr. Grabel’s patients. However, respondent failed to show to the trial court that he complied with the notice provisions *700of section 456.057(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2012), which requires notice to patients whose medical records are sought before issuance of a subpoena for the records by a court of competent jurisdiction. Coopers-mith v. Perrine, 91 So.3d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
Respondent’s subpoenas issued to insurance carriers requiring disclosure of financial information concerning payments made by those carriers to Dr. Grabel for services provided as a litigation expert seek information protected from disclosure by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(5)(A)(iii)4., which states “the expert shall not be required to disclose his or her earnings as an expert witness or income derived from other services.” El-kins v. Syken, 672 So.2d 517, 522 (Fla. 1996); Gramman v. Stachkunas, 750 So.2d 688, 690 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). A subpoena may not be used to secure discovery of financial or business records concerning a litigation expert unless “unusual or compelling circumstances” have been shown. Smith v. Eldred, 96 So.3d 1102, 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Miller v. Harris, 2 So.3d 1070, 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). The trial court’s orders denying petitioners’ motions for protective orders do not state any basis for a finding of unusual or compelling circumstances in this case.
Accordingly, the trial court’s orders denying petitioners’ motions for protective order are vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Petitions granted; orders denying motions for protective orders vacated and remanded with directions.
GROSS, CONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jordan Grabel, M.D. v. Sterrett, 163 So. 3d 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…rvices provided as a litigation expert. This Court quoted Rule 1.280(5) (b) (A) (iii), which provides that “the expert shall not be required to disclose his or her earnings as an expert witness or income derived from other services.” Brand v. Roura, 144 So. 3d 699, 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). This Court also stated, “[a] subpoena may not be used to secure discovery of financial or business records concerning a litigation expert unless ‘unusual or compelling circumstances’ have been shown[,]” and that “[t]he tria…
-
Jordan Grabel, M.D. v. Adolfo Roura, 174 So. 3d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…PER CURIAM. We grant in part these consolidated petitions for writ of certiorari seeking review of trial court discovery orders. Following our decision in Brana v. Roura, 144 So. 3d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), the trial court determined that the deposition responses of Dr. Jordan Grabel, the defense expert witness, were inconsistent with the interrogatory answers provided by defense counsel. The inconsistencies concerned the percentag…
Authorities Cited
- Elkins v. Syken, 672 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1996)
- Coopersmith v. Perrine, 91 So. 3d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Gramman v. Stachkunas, 750 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Miller v. Harris, 2 So. 3d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Smith v. Eldred, 96 So. 3d 1102 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)