Poston v. Wiggins
112 So. 3d 783
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant seeks writ of certiorari to quash trial court order compelling discovery of medical records.
- Order requires disclosure of pre-accident pharmacy records for one year and post-accident medical records from accident onward.
- Plaintiffs alleged inconsistencies between interrogatories and deposition regarding injuries and prescription usage.
- Trial court overruled objections, ordering release of pre- and post-accident records, with release to counsel for possible in camera review.
- Petitioner argued privacy interests and irrelevance; court split: pre-accident records potentially relevant but irreparable harm premature; post-accident records irrelevant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Irreparable harm for pre-accident records | Pre-accident pharmacy records likely relevant due to inconsistencies. | Harm from disclosure is premature; in camera review possible; irreparable harm not shown. | Premature irreparable harm; dismiss pre-accident records portion. |
| Relevance of post-accident medical records | Post-accident records may reveal injury and support damages. | Post-accident records are irrelevant to negligence issues. | Post-accident records are irrelevant; order quashed. |
| Proper standard for certiorari review of discovery orders | Certiorari appropriate for misapplication of privacy interests and discovery law. | Certiorari available when order departs from law causing irreparable harm. | Certiorari proper after jurisdictional irreparable-harm analysis; remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heekin v. Del Col, 60 So.3d 437 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (establishes certiorari review when order causes irreparable harm)
- Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Higgins, 975 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (requires jurisdictional irreparable-harm showing before certiorari relief)
- Barker v. Barker, 909 So.2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (privacy-rights balancing governs discovery disclosure)
- Rasmussen v. S. Fla. Blood Serv., Inc., 500 So.2d 533 (Fla.1987) (privacy interests limit broad discovery)
- James v. Veneziano, 98 So.3d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (in camera review for relevancy where privacy implicated)
- Holden Cove, Inc. v. 4 Mac Holdings, Inc., 948 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (prematurity of irreparable-harm argument rejected)
- Cape Canaveral Hosp., Inc. v. Leal, 917 So.2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (denying certiorari as premature when in camera review possible)
- Pusateri v. Fernandez, 707 So.2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (discovery denied when information not relevant or beneficial)