MAUREEN STOYKA
v.
MARY GRECZ
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.
A defendant in a slip and fall action sought a writ of certiorari to quash a trial court's discovery order requiring disclosure of her medical and pharmaceutical information. The court granted the petition, holding that the defendant's medical records are protected by statutory privilege and cannot be discovered absent an exception, particularly where the defendant has not placed her medical condition at issue.
Medical and pharmaceutical records are protected by statutory privilege and are not discoverable in this negligence action. The party seeking privileged documents bears the burden of proving that an exception applies, and the plaintiff failed to meet that burden where the defendant's medical information is irrelevant to whether she was negligent.
[1] Medical and pharmaceutical records are protected by statutory privilege in negligence actions, and the party seeking such privileged documents bears the burden of proving…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 records of husband's treating physician, the medical facility, and the pharmacy fall within the ambit of the statutory privilege, and that privilege is only waived under the extreme circumstances described in the case law.”
Citation to Brooks v. Brooks for the principle that medical information is protected unless extreme circumstances warrant disclosure.
The plaintiff slipped and fell in a condominium elevator, alleging that the defendant caused the fall by spilling a beverage upon returning from a res…
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 Slip And Fall cases and more on FLexlaw
Michael B. Stevens, Jon D. Derrevere and Shirley Jean McEachern of Derrevere Stevens Black & Cozad, West Palm Beach, for respondent Mary Grecz.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, the defendant in a pending slip and fall action, seeks a writ of certiorari to quash a trial court’s order requiring that she disclose medical and pharmaceutical information. We grant the petition because petitioner is correct that discovery of this private and confidential medical information is protected and not permitted in this action. See Brooks v. Brooks, 239 So. 3d 758, 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (“The records of husband's treating physician, the medical facility, and the pharmacy fall within the ambit of the statutory privilege, and that privilege is only waived under the extreme circumstances described in the case law.”); Brown v. Montanez, 90 So. 3d 982, 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quashing order requiring production of defendant motorist’s post-accident substance abuse treatment records).
In the case below, the plaintiff slipped in a condominium’s elevator. Plaintiff alleges that petitioner caused her to slip and fall when petitioner returned from a restaurant, spilled her beverage in the elevator, and failed to clean up the spill or notify the building staff.
The party seeking the privileged documents has the burden to prove that an exception applies. Brown, 90 So. 3d at 986. Plaintiff failed to meet that burden since petitioner has not placed her medical condition at issue, and the medical information is irrelevant to the question of whether petitioner was negligent. See id. at 986-88. Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the trial court’s order. Petition granted, order quashed. MAY, DAMOORGIAN and CIKLIN, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. Nya Yanitza Montanez and Eduardo Gonzalez, 90 So. 3d 982 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Brooks v. Brooks, 239 So. 3d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)