Bartow HMA, LLC v. Kirkland
126 So. 3d 1247
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Kirkland sued Bartow Regional for malpractice arising from a cholecystectomy that was converted from laparoscopic to open; she served two separate requests for production.
- Some requests specifically sought records of "adverse medical incidents" under Florida Amendment 7; others did not reference Amendment 7 or use the phrase.
- Bartow Regional produced some documents, asserted work-product, peer-review/risk-management, and attorney-client privileges for others, and filed multiple privilege logs.
- Kirkland moved to compel production of the documents on the privilege logs, arguing they related to an adverse medical incident and thus were discoverable under Amendment 7; she also sought in camera review of a subset of documents.
- At the hearing both parties agreed an in camera review was required before any blanket disclosure, but the circuit court nonetheless ordered production of all items on the privilege logs and awarded Kirkland fees.
- Bartow Regional petitioned for certiorari; the district court granted the petition and quashed the circuit court’s order because the court failed to perform the necessary threshold and in camera determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kirkland) | Defendant's Argument (Bartow Regional) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether documents on privilege logs are discoverable under Amendment 7 | Requests were limited to documents relating to an adverse medical incident; conversion to open surgery is an adverse incident | Not all logged documents are adverse-incident reports; many are nonresponsive or privileged | Court: Requests were not all limited to adverse incidents; threshold inquiry required to determine which documents qualify under Amendment 7 |
| Whether Amendment 7 preempts asserted privileges (work product, peer-review, HCQIA, statutory protections) | Amendment 7 entitles patient to any records relating to an adverse medical incident, overriding some statutory protections | Privileges apply to documents that are not adverse-incident reports; opinion work product and attorney-client privilege may remain | Court: Amendment 7 preempts certain protections only for documents that actually contain adverse-incident reports; attorney-client and opinion work product may still apply; threshold determination required |
| Whether circuit court could order blanket production without in camera review | In camera review unnecessary if documents are clearly adverse-incident reports | In camera review required to identify which documents actually relate to adverse incidents and which are privileged/nonresponsive | Court: Circuit court erred by ordering blanket production without in camera review; such review is required as a threshold step |
| Whether certiorari relief is appropriate (irreparable harm/no adequate remedy on appeal) | N/A (respondent) | Production of privileged or nonresponsive documents causes irreparable harm not remediable on appeal | Court: Bartow Regional established irreparable harm and certiorari jurisdiction; petition granted and order quashed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lakeland Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Neely, 8 So.3d 1268 (Fla. 2d DCA) (certiorari standard for discovery orders)
- Morton Plant Hosp. Ass’n v. Shahbas, 960 So.2d 820 (Fla. 2d DCA) (scope of Amendment 7 and limits on non-incident materials)
- Baldwin v. Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc., 45 So.3d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA) (Amendment 7 threshold of adverse medical incident)
- W. Fla. Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. See, 79 So.3d 1 (Fla. 2012) (Amendment 7 preempts certain statutory discovery protections for incident reports)
- Fla. Hosp. Waterman, Inc. v. Buster, 984 So.2d 478 (Fla.) (Amendment 7 scope and patient access)
- Columbia Hosp. Corp. of S. Broward v. Fain, 16 So.3d 236 (Fla. 4th DCA) (certiorari jurisdiction and Amendment 7 principles)
- Fla. Eye Clinic, P.A. v. Gmach, 14 So.3d 1044 (Fla. 5th DCA) (work-product preemption by Amendment 7 limited to fact work product)
- Patrowicz v. Wolff, 110 So.3d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA) (in camera review required before ordering disclosure of documents claimed privileged)