Florida Supreme Court Kills Secret Interview Law in Medmal Cases
The court found patients' constitutional rights were violated by 2013 amendments allowing potential defendants to interview patients' other doctors in secret.
November 09, 2017 at 04:03 PM
9 minute read
Photo: Phil Sears
The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday struck down parts of the state's medical malpractice law in a 4-3 decision finding provisions violated patients' constitutional rights to privacy and access to courts.
The stricken lines of the 2013 law required people preparing to file a medical negligence lawsuit to sign a waiver allowing potential defendants to interview a claimants' health care providers about protected health information. The interviews could take place in secret, without the claimants or their attorneys.
When Emma Weaver challenged the amendments on behalf of her late husband, his doctor argued privacy rights don't extend to the dead. The First District Court of Appeal upheld the constitutionality of the ex parte interview requirement. But a 50-page opinion with Justice R. Fred Lewis writing for the majority reversed that decision.
“Death does not retroactively abolish the constitutional protections for privacy that existed at the moment of death,” Lewis wrote, with Chief Justice Jorge Labarga and Justices Barbara Pariente and Peggy Quince concurring. “To hold otherwise would be ironic because it would afford greater privacy rights to plaintiffs who survived alleged medical malpractice while depriving plaintiffs of the same protections where the alleged medical malpractice was egregious enough to end the lives of those plaintiffs. This is an outcome that our Florida Constitution could not possibly sanction.”
The majority also found the Legislature “unconstitutionally conditioned a plaintiff's right of access to courts for redress of injuries caused by medical malpractice” whether the injury killed them or not.
The dissent from Justices Charles Canady, C. Alan Lawson and Ricky Polston clocked in at 31 pages, calling the majority opinion “unwarranted interference with the Legislature's authority.”
“Medical malpractice claimants have no reasonable expectation of privacy in medical information that is relevant to the alleged malpractice — and that is the only information authorized to be discussed under the ex parte amendments,” Canady wrote.
Pensacola attorney Virginia Buchanan of Levin Papantonio, who represented Weaver, said the decision makes a difference for every medical malpractice victim in Florida. The closed-door interviews unfairly excluded patients from discussions of their own health, she said.
“The goal was to ensure open and free access to information to facilitate settlement, and I'm not sure how that got so misguided,” Buchanan said. “Because I certainly have not seen anything like that in my experience with the use of these authorizations. I have not seen that there's been a freer, franker discussion to facilitate settlement. Instead, I think what's happened is the doctor-patient relationships that are so important have been compromised.”
Opposing counsel Mark Hicks of Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein in Miami did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.
Medical malpractice plaintiffs lawyer Bob Kelley of Kelley/Uustal in Fort Lauderdale, who was not involved with the case, cheered the court's decision. He said the issue has come up rarely in his firm's cases as defense attorney didn't always taken advantage of the ex parte interview statute.
“I think a lot of the defense lawyers in town were uncomfortable with the whole concept, and I think they were waiting to get some guidance from the Florida Supreme Court before they did anything,” he said. “Before 2013, it would have been unheard of to do that, to have an ex parte interview with someone's treating doctors.”
Kelley said he was especially impressed by the majority's acknowledgment of the idea that Florida's pre-suit process does not achieve its stated purpose of resolving medical malpractice disputes before they go to court.
State law requires potential claimants to provide information to defendants before filing a lawsuit, including medical records and a list of health care providers.
“The supposed facilitation of settlement is not a reality for either party in medical malpractice litigation,” Lewis wrote. “A secret ex parte interview with a treating health care provider does not lead to the discovery of medical information that would not otherwise be discoverable, such that it facilitates settlement.”
That's the first time Kelley has seen the Supreme Court bash the pre-suit process, and he looks forward to seeing whether more change is on the horizon.
“That is something we've had a lot of experience with — all of the lawyers in Florida have,” Kelley said. “The pre-suit process is a waste of time. It does not facilitate settlement. All it does is cause delay.”
Florida's medical malpractice law has been a sore point between the Legislature and Florida Supreme Court since 2003 when an overhaul placed caps on damages. The caps were struck down by the court in June as unconstitutional.
Photo: Phil Sears
The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday struck down parts of the state's medical malpractice law in a 4-3 decision finding provisions violated patients' constitutional rights to privacy and access to courts.
The stricken lines of the 2013 law required people preparing to file a medical negligence lawsuit to sign a waiver allowing potential defendants to interview a claimants' health care providers about protected health information. The interviews could take place in secret, without the claimants or their attorneys.
When Emma Weaver challenged the amendments on behalf of her late husband, his doctor argued privacy rights don't extend to the dead. The First District Court of Appeal upheld the constitutionality of the ex parte interview requirement. But a 50-page opinion with Justice R. Fred
“Death does not retroactively abolish the constitutional protections for privacy that existed at the moment of death,”
The majority also found the Legislature “unconstitutionally conditioned a plaintiff's right of access to courts for redress of injuries caused by medical malpractice” whether the injury killed them or not.
The dissent from Justices Charles Canady, C. Alan Lawson and
“Medical malpractice claimants have no reasonable expectation of privacy in medical information that is relevant to the alleged malpractice — and that is the only information authorized to be discussed under the ex parte amendments,” Canady wrote.
Pensacola attorney
“The goal was to ensure open and free access to information to facilitate settlement, and I'm not sure how that got so misguided,” Buchanan said. “Because I certainly have not seen anything like that in my experience with the use of these authorizations. I have not seen that there's been a freer, franker discussion to facilitate settlement. Instead, I think what's happened is the doctor-patient relationships that are so important have been compromised.”
Opposing counsel Mark Hicks of Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein in Miami did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.
Medical malpractice plaintiffs lawyer Bob Kelley of Kelley/Uustal in Fort Lauderdale, who was not involved with the case, cheered the court's decision. He said the issue has come up rarely in his firm's cases as defense attorney didn't always taken advantage of the ex parte interview statute.
“I think a lot of the defense lawyers in town were uncomfortable with the whole concept, and I think they were waiting to get some guidance from the Florida Supreme Court before they did anything,” he said. “Before 2013, it would have been unheard of to do that, to have an ex parte interview with someone's treating doctors.”
Kelley said he was especially impressed by the majority's acknowledgment of the idea that Florida's pre-suit process does not achieve its stated purpose of resolving medical malpractice disputes before they go to court.
State law requires potential claimants to provide information to defendants before filing a lawsuit, including medical records and
“The supposed facilitation of settlement is not a reality for either party in medical malpractice litigation,”
That's the first time Kelley has seen the Supreme Court bash the pre-suit process, and he looks forward to seeing whether more change is on the horizon.
“That is something we've had a lot of experience with — all of the lawyers in Florida have,” Kelley said. “The pre-suit process is a waste of time. It does not facilitate settlement. All it does is cause delay.”
Florida's medical malpractice law has been a sore point between the Legislature and Florida Supreme Court since 2003 when an overhaul placed caps on damages. The caps were struck down by the court in June as unconstitutional.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Bankruptcy Filings Rise 16.2% as Interest Rates, Inflation, and End of COVID Relief Hit Hard
3 minute readBig Law Practice Leaders 'Bullish' That Second Trump Presidency Will Be Good for Business
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250