Bartow HMA, LLC v. Kirkland
171 So. 3d 783
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- BRMC petitions for certiorari to review a trial court order requiring production of documents in an underlying medical malpractice action by Kirkland.
- This follows a prior BRMC certiorari grant in 2013 directing a focused review for Amendment 7 relevance and for statutory protections.
- The current order conducted an in camera review and largely required disclosure, with two redactions, prompting this petition.
- We held that the trial court departed from essential legal requirements by producing documents not shown to relate to adverse medical incidents under Amendment 7.
- We removed the order and instructed a more granular in camera review, listing documents and applying Amendment 7 and statutory protections; redactions may be required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by ordering production of documents not tied to adverse medical incidents under Amendment 7. | BRMC argues many documents are unrelated to specific adverse medical incidents. | Kirkland contends broad production is permissible under Amendment 7. | Yes; order was quashed for misapplying Amendment 7. |
| Whether Amendment 7 preempts statutory discovery protections for adverse medical incident documents. | BRMC asserts Amendment 7 overrides statutory protections for such documents. | Kirkland argues statutory protections may still apply where relevant. | Partially; amendment applies when documents concern adverse incidents, but court must assess statutory protections on redaction. |
| Whether the trial court conducted a proper in camera analysis to distinguish discoverable from non-discoverable material. | BRMC contends the court failed to separately identify which documents fall under Amendment 7. | Kirkland maintains the in camera review was sufficient to justify production. | Remanded for a detailed, document-by-document amendment 7 vs. statutory protection analysis. |
| Whether the court should enforce redactions to protect non-discoverable portions. | BRMC notes some information should be redacted to preserve protections. | Production should include only responsive, discoverable contents. | Redaction may be required where portions are protected, with precise delineation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirkland v. Bartow HMA, LLC, 126 So. 3d 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (Amendment 7 governs adverse medical incident disclosures; blanket production improper; guidance issued for focused review)
- Morton Plant Hosp. Ass'n v. Shahbas ex rel. Shahbas, 960 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (Amendment 7 scope; adverse incident definition; preemption of certain statutory protections)
- W. Fla. Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. See, 18 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (Adverse incident definition; limits on discovery of credentialing documents)
- Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Garcia, 994 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (Trial court departure from essential requirements of law in broad disclosures)
- See, 79 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2012) (Approval of related standards for Amendment 7 interpretation)