Southern Baptist Hospital of Florida, Inc. v. Charles ex rel. Charles
178 So. 3d 102
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Amendment 7 provides broad access to adverse medical incident records; it is confronted with federal PSWP protections under the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 (Act).
- Baptist Hospital participates in a PSE system and reports to PSO Florida; records labeled occurrence reports may be protected PSWP.
- Respondents sought production of documents related to adverse medical incidents; circuit court ordered production, including some occurring reports.
- Circuit court held PSWP status did not attach to documents with dual purposes or state reporting obligations; ordered production with a fee requirement.
- Petitioner Baptist sought certiorari; Florida Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether the Act preempts Amendment 7 and protects PSWP from discovery; the court quashed the orders.
- The court emphasizes plain-language interpretation of the Act and preemption under Supremacy Clause, finding PSWP protected and preempting Amendment 7 discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Act preempts Amendment 7 discovery. | Baptist: PSWP is privileged and discoverable only if not within PSE. | Respondents: dual purposes remove PSWP protection if state reporting exists. | Yes; Act preempts Amendment 7, protecting PSWP from discovery. |
| Whether documents in a PSE system can be PSWP despite state reporting. | PSWP remains protected if placed in PSE and reported later. | Dual purposes negate PSWP protection in some docs. | Documents in PSE that are PSWP remain protected; dual-purpose interpretation rejected. |
| Whether state reporting requirements strip PSWP protection. | State reporting could nullify PSWP. | No stripping unless documents fall outside PSWP definition. | Not unless the documents fall outside PSWP; state reporting does not negate PSWP. |
| Whether irreparable harm supports certiorari jurisdiction. | Petition shows irreparable harm from compelled disclosure. | Harm could be remedied on appeal. | Irreparable harm shown; certiorari jurisdiction established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krause v. Textron Fin. Corp., 59 So.3d 1085 (Fla. 2011) (plain-language guides statutory interpretation; Act's plain meaning controls)
- Tibbs v. Bunnell, 448 S.W.3d 796 (Ky.2014) (dissent referenced gamesmanship and remedy for noncompliance)
- Dep't of Fin. & Prof'l Reg. v. Walgreen Co., 361 Ill.Dec. 186, 970 N.E.2d 652 (Ill. 2012) (interpretation of privilege under Act; PSWP protection focus)
- Bd. of Tr. of the Int'l Improvement Trust Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, 99 So.3d 450 (Fla.2012) (certiorari scope and irreparable harm considerations)
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1987) (certiorari review of discovery orders for privilege issues)