Acevedo v. Doctors Hospital, Inc.
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12900
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Acevedos seek certiorari to quash a trial court order allowing redaction of opinion-based material in Amendment 7 incident reports.
- Requests 9, 10, and 11 seek all adverse medical incident records and redacted patient identifiers from doctors at Doctors Hospital.
- Trial court held redacted portions were opinion work product and allowed a privilege log for remaining Amendment 7 materials.
- Court reduced disclosure by redacting opinions, comments, recommendations, and findings it deemed non-privileged, while withholding risk-management reports tied to adverse incidents.
- The issue is whether Amendment 7 overrides the traditional work product protections and requires production of all adverse incident records, including non-fact components.
- Petition granted; paragraph 4 of the order quashed and Doctors Hospital ordered to produce all adverse medical incident reports under Requests 9–11.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether paragraph 4 improperly redacted opinions from Amendment 7 reports | Acevedo argues redactions impermissibly shield opinion work product. | Doctors Hospital maintains redactions are opinion work product. | Redaction of opinions not protected; paragraph 4 reversed. |
| Whether Amendment 7 preempts work product protections for adverse medical incidents | Amendment 7 provides broad access to adverse incident records. | Work product protections can apply to certain materials even with Amendment 7. | Amendment 7 preempts traditional opinion work product protections in this context; full production required. |
| Whether risk management and incident reports identified as adverse incidents must be produced | All such records must be produced under Amendment 7 without redaction. | Risk management materials may be shielded. | Produce all adverse incident reports (Requests 9–11); no privilege for these under Amendment 7. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fla. Hosp. Waterman, Inc. v. Buster, 984 So.2d 478 (Fla. 2008) (Amendment 7 broad access to adverse medical incidents; limits on work product extension)
- Lakeland Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Neely, 8 So.3d 1268 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (no extension of work product protection under Amendment 7)
- Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Deason, 632 So.2d 1377 (Fla. 1994) (distinction between fact and opinion work product; limits on disclosure)
- State v. Rabin, 495 So.2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (attorney’s mental impressions protected; notes on material)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Hall-Edwards, 997 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 2008) (protecting attorney mental impressions in discovery)
- Dodson v. Persell, 390 So.2d 704 (Fla. 1980) (personal views of attorney in litigation context protected)
- Northup v. Acken, M.D., P.A., 865 So.2d 1267 (Fla. 2004) (attorney may not be compelled to disclose mental impressions)
- Williams v. Spears, 719 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (certiorari when constitutional rights affected during litigation)
- Lower Keys Med. Ctr. v. Windisch, 29 So.3d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (context of discovery decisions post-Amendment 7)