ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, AND B. G. GROSS, M.D., PETITIONERS,
v.
ABIGAIL PERALTA AND PEDRO PERALTA, 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.
Dr. Gross and his insurer sought certiorari review of a discovery order requiring production of medical records and photographs of non-party patients treated with silicone injections. The appellate court held that broad discovery requests spanning eleven years and seeking detailed medical information about third-party patients violate principles of proportionality and privacy, and cannot be justified merely to show a doctor's competency in a medical malpractice case.
Certiorari is granted and the trial court's order is quashed. The court held that discovery requests seeking detailed medical information about strangers to the suit are improper because they are unduly burdensome (covering eleven years), lack demonstrated relevancy at that stage, violate the privacy interests of non-parties, and are unnecessary because a doctor's standard of care can be proven through alternative methods.
[1] Discovery requests must seek relevant matters and cannot be so excessive as to be unduly burdensome.
[2] A party seeking discovery must demonstrate the relevancy of the documents sought to the cause of action.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“to permit a party to inject into the public record medical information of a stranger to the suit, under the guise that it has a bearing on the competency of the doctor, would be unconscionable”
Establishes the fundamental principle that privacy interests of non-party patients cannot be invaded merely to show a doctor's competency
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAbigail Peralta employed Dr. B.G. Gross to perform cosmetic surgery involving silicone injections; the procedure was unsuccessful and she sued for med…
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 Standard Of Care In Medical Malpractice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By this petition for writ of certiorari, the petitioners seek review of an order of the trial court directing them to produce certain medical records of the petitioner, B. G. Gross.
The respondent, Abigail Peralta, employed Dr. Gross to perform certain cosmetic surgery. The procedure was unsuccessful and the respondents institute the instant action seeking damages for medical malpractice. In the course of discovery, the respondent propounded to Dr. Gross an extensive notice to produce, containing among other things the following:
“2. Any and all business records of Defendant, B. G. Gross, M. D. including can-celled checks, check ledgers, receipt ledgers, disbursement ledgers, and any and all other business records which relate to the injection of silicone in patients for the period of 1966 to present.
“23. Any and all photographs in the possession of the Defendant, B. G. Gross, M. D. or his attorneys relating to the injection of liquid silicone.
“28. Any and all medical reports, written memoranda, consent forms,' relating to silicone injections in Defendant, B. G. Gross’ patients from 1966 to present.”
The petitioners objected thereto, alleging the materials were irrelevant, the request was burdensome, and it constituted a violation of the doctor-patient privilege between Dr. Gross and persons not involved in the suit. The trial court denied the objections but ordered that the patients’ names and addresses be deleted from the records and that their faces on the photographs be blanked out.
On review, the petitioners contend it was error to order production of medical records and photographs of persons not a party to the action. We agree.
While liberal construction is to be given to rules of discovery, the request must still seek relative matters and must not be so excessive so as to be unduly burdensome to the party ordered to produce. Riddle Airlines, Inc. v. Mann, 123 So. 2d 685 (Fla.3d DCA 1960); International Business Machines Corporation v. Elder, 187 So. 2d 82 (Fla.3d DCA 1966); Jones v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 297 So. 2d 861 (Fla.2d DCA 1974); 10 Fla.Jur., Discovery and Depositions, § 13. Certainly, requiring the petitioner to produce his records for a period of about eleven years would be so excessive and burdensome as to require entry of a protective order. Furthermore, at this stage of the proceedings in the trial court there has been no showing of relevancy to the cause of the documents sought to be produced and they too should have been entitled to a protective order on that ground. Hoogland v. Dollar Land Corporation, Ltd., 330 So. 2d 509 (Fla.4th DCA 1976).
Lastly, we are confronted with the question of doctor/patient privilege as to persons not a party to the suit. Surely when one brings a medical malpractice suit, such as the instant case, one’s medical history'becomes the subject matter of the suit and he would waive any claim to privilege he might have under the law, if any. However, to permit a party to inject into the public record medical information of a stranger to the suit, under the guise that it has a bearing on the competency of the doctor, would be unconscionable. The question in medical malpractice is whether or not the doctor, in treating the plaintiff, used a standard of care commensurate with that used in the community and that question can be answered by utilizing other methods of proof than the invasion into medical records of strangers.. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); Talcott v. Holl, 224 So. 2d 420 (Fla.3d DCA 1969).
We have not overlooked West Volusia Hospital Authority v. Williams, 308 So. 2d 634 (Fla.1st DCA 1975) and Springer v. Greer, 341 So. 2d 212 (Fla.4th DCA 1976), relied upon by the respondent. However, we find they are not applicable. Neither of these cases seek specific medial information about persons not a party to the case, but rather they merely seek information about the occurrence of a specific incident which could be provided without going into the medical history of the persons involved.
Therefore, certiorari is granted and the order reviewed is hereby quashed, and this cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (25 total)
-
Bernadette Amente v. Willie B. Newman, M.D., 653 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 1995)…dical malpractice is whether the doctor used a standard of care commensurate with that used in the community, and this question can be answered by methods other than invading the medical ree- [*1032] ords of strangers); Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Peralta, 358 So. 2d 232, 233 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 364 So. 2d 889 (Fla.1978) (order requiring production of medical records and photographs of persons not party to the suit was error because “to permit a party to inject into the public record medical information of…
-
Dade Cnty. Med. Ass'n v. Hlis, 372 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…cum does fall into one of these categories, it may be quashed, modified, or subject to a protective order, even though it seeks relevant information. Hecht v. Pro-Football, Inc., 46 F.R.D. 605 (D.D.C.1969).” [e. s.] In Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Peralta, 358 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 364 So. 2d 889 (Fla.1978), this court, at the instance of the defendant physician, denied discovery of the records of other patients the doctor had similarly treated. The decision was based largely upon a concern fo…
-
Syken v. Elkins, 644 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…o the jury. [*544] Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280 allows for discovery of any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the action. The scope of this rule, while recognized as being broad, Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Peralta, 358 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 364 So. 2d 889 (Fla.1978), is not without limitation. First, as the rule indicates, irrelevant and privileged matter is not subject to discovery. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(1). Second, the discovery of relevant, non-privilege…
Previewing 3 of 25 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Jones v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 297 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Talcott v. Holl, 224 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- D'Amato v. State, 308 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Cyndie E. Springer v. Greer, 341 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Hoogland v. Dollar Land Corp., Ltd., 330 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Jewell Elder and David S. Elder, 187 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Riddle Airlines, Inc. v. Mann, 123 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)