Coralluzzo By and Through Coralluzzo v. Fass, 64034
| Decision Date | 17 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 64034,64034 |
| Citation | 450 So.2d 858 |
| Parties | Holly CORALLUZZO, a minor By and Through her mother and next friend, Anita CORALLUZZO, and Anita Coralluzzo, individually, Petitioners, v. Paul FASS, M.D., Cora Sue Golden, M.D., Physicians Protective Trust Fund, Florida Patient's Compensation Fund, Curtis Meltzer, M.D., Daniel Diana, M.D., Sanford Robbins, M.D., Philip Freeland, M.D., and Arthur Sher, M.D., d/b/a Radiology Associates and Parkway General Hospital, Inc., a Florida corporation, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Karen A. Gievers of Anderson, Moss, Russo & Gievers, Miami, for petitioners.
James E. Tribble and Todd A. Cowart of Blackwell, Walker, Gray, Powers, Flick & Hoehl, Miami, for respondents.
Larry Klein, West Palm Beach, for Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae.
Mary Friedman of Colson, Hicks & Eidson, Miami, for Dade County Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae.
Bernard J. Zimmerman of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, Orlando, for Iowa Nat. Mut. Ins. Co., amicus curiae.
Gerald E. Rosser, Miami, for Florida Defense Lawyers Ass'n, amicus curiae.
Robert M. Klein of Stephens, Lynn, Chernay, Klein & Zuckerman, Miami, for Florida Physicians Ins. Reciprocal, amicus curiae.
This cause is before us on a question certified by the Third District Court of Appeal as being of great public importance. Coralluzzo v. Fass, 435 So.2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
The respondents, several health care providers, allegedly improperly diagnosed and treated an ailment suffered by then eight-year-old Holly Coralluzzo. The condition was later found, by an oral surgeon, Dr. Magnacca, to be related to a dental abscess.
In August, 1981, defendant Fass and certain other defendants (respondents here) made arrangements to meet ex parte with Dr. Magnacca on August 31 to discuss the Coralluzzo case. On August 31, 1981, plaintiff's counsel learned of the pending unauthorized ex parte meeting. When Dr Magnacca and defense counsel refused to cancel the meeting, an emergency motion for protective order was filed. The circuit court heard argument and entered a protective order prohibiting the defendants from having unauthorized ex parte contact with plaintiff's health care providers.
On July 8, 1982, the circuit court vacated the August 1981 protective order, finding Frantz v. Golebiewski, 407 So.2d 283, 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), to be controlling.
The plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari, and asked the district court to prohibit the defendants' unilateral, ex parte interference with the confidential relationship existing between Coralluzzo and her treating health care providers. After an en banc hearing, a six-three district court majority denied the relief sought, citing as authority Rule 1.280(b)(3), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and Frantz v. Golebiewski. The district court found the case to involve a question of great public importance and certified the following question to this Court:
Does a court have the authority to prevent a treating physician from extrajudicially disclosing information obtained from his patient and information concerning the treatment of his patient where the patient has not consented to such disclosure?
435 So.2d at 263 n. 1. For the following reasons, we answer the question in the negative and approve the decision of the district court.
In Frantz v. Golebiewski, which the Third District found to control the case before us, the defendant in a medical malpractice suit took a sworn statement from plaintiff's treating physician without giving notice to the plaintiff. The trial court, on plaintiff's motion, ordered that the statement be supplied to the plaintiff. When the defendant refused, the trial court fined him and ordered that the sworn statement could not be used in any way during the trial. Additionally, the trial court orde...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Castillo-Plaza v. Green
...in Castillo-Plaza is granted and those in Pierre and Giron are denied. I. The present controversy had its genesis in Coralluzzo v. Fass, 450 So.2d 858 (Fla.1984) and Frantz v. Golebiewski, 407 So.2d 283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), in which the Supreme Court and this one respectively held that there......
-
Moses v. McWilliams
...have held that ex parte interviews are proper. See Arctic Motor Freight, Inc. v. Stover, 571 P.2d 1006 (Alaska 1977); Coralluzzo v. Fass, 450 So.2d 858 (Fla.1984); State ex rel. Stufflebam v. Appelquist, 694 S.W.2d 882 (Mo.App.1985); Lazorick v. Brown, 195 N.J. Super. 444, 480 A.2d 223 (198......
-
Heller v. Norcal Mutual Ins. Co., S034539
...617 A.2d 119; Domako v. Rowe (1991) 438 Mich. 347, 360, 475 N.W.2d 30, 36; Felder v. Wyman (D.S.C.1991) 139 F.R.D. 85; Coralluzzo v. Fass (Fla.1984) 450 So.2d 858; Doe v. Eli Lilly & Co. (D.D.C.1983) 99 F.R.D. 126; Trans-World Investments v. Drobny (Alaska 1976) 554 P.2d 1148, 1152), and in......
-
Weaver v. Myers
...even relies on cases that support our holding and conclusions, when those cases are properly and fully analyzed.In Coralluzzo v. Fass, 450 So.2d 858 (Fla. 1984), superseded by statute, § 456.057, Fla. Stat. (2009) ; Hasan v. Garvar, 108 So.3d 570 (Fla. 2012) ; and Acosta, 671 So.2d 149......