Alachua General Hosp., Inc. v. Stewart

• Decision Date: 09 February 1995
• Docket Number: No. 94-2524,94-2524
• Citation: 649 So.2d 357
• Parties: 20 Fla. L. Weekly D365 ALACHUA GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC. Petitioner, v. Sheila STEWART, as Guardian of the person and property of Shirley Sams, an incapacitated person, and Sheila Stewart, as next friend of James Walter Sams, an incapacitated person; and Celia Elbrecht, M.D. Respondents.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 357

649 So.2d 357

20 Fla. L. Weekly D365

ALACHUA GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC. Petitioner, v. Sheila STEWART, as Guardian of the person and property of

Shirley Sams, an incapacitated person, and Sheila Stewart,

as next friend of James Walter Sams, an incapacitated

person; and Celia Elbrecht, M.D. Respondents.

No. 94-2524.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

First District.

Feb. 9, 1995.

Gary L. Sanders and Jean A. Bice of Pattillo & McKeever, P.A., Ocala, for petitioner.

Raymond F. Brady of McGalliard & Brady, Gainesville, for respondents.

WOLF, Judge.

Petitioner, Alachua General Hospital (AGH), seeks a writ of common law certiorari to quash the trial court's order denying a request to conduct ex parte interviews with three doctors who treated a patient in petitioner's hospital. The issue is whether a hospital charged with liability for the negligence of a physician alleged to be an agent of the hospital may conduct ex parte interviews with that physician without admitting before trial that the physician was the hospital's agent or employee.

AGH is the defendant in this medical negligence action brought by the patient's guardian which sought court permission to conduct ex parte interviews with three physicians who provided care and treatment to the patient in this case. The plaintiff alleged that AGH should be held vicariously liable for their negligent acts and omissions based on an employment or agency relationship between the physicians and the hospital. None of the three physicians are named as defendants in the lawsuit. In its answer, AGH denied that an employee or agency relationship existed. The trial court denied the hospital's request to conduct ex parte interviews with the physicians.

Section 455.241(2), Florida Statutes (1989), in pertinent part, provides,

Except in a medical negligence action when a health care provider is or reasonably expects to be named as a defendant, information disclosed to a health care practitioner by a patient in the course of the care and treatment of such patient is confidential and may be disclosed only to other health care providers involved in the care or treatment of the patient, or if permitted by written authorization from the patient or compelled by subpoena at a deposition, evidentiary hearing, or trial for which proper notice has been given.

The exception to the general rule of patient confidentiality emphasized above was discussed by the second district in Manor Care of Dunedin, Inc. v. Keiser, 611 So.2d 1305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In Manor Care, an action was brought against a nursing home alleging negligence, wrongful death and violation of a nursing home patient's rights. There, plaintiff's counsel sought to prohibit counsel for defendant nursing home from communicating ex parte with any of its former employees who may have attended to plaintiff's decedent, basing the demand on his interpretation of section 455.241, Florida Statutes (1991). The trial court in Manor Care concluded that while plaintiff's counsel could contact and communicate with defendant's former employees, defendant's counsel could not.

The appellate court in Manor Care determined that defendant nursing home was permitted to discuss a patient's condition with its former employees without prior notice or subpoena, given the statute's exception for health care providers who are, or reasonably expect to be, sued by the patient. Id. at 1307 (citing Franklin v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 566 So.2d 529, 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. dismissed, 574 So.2d 142 (Fla.1990) (privilege applies "in all cases other than those where the health care provider is a defendant").

In construing this exception to the general rule of patient confidentiality, the court in Manor Care reasoned as follows:

The only reasonable construction of this provision is that the legislature intended to impose no impediment to health care practitioners' disclosure of patient data in their own possession once litigation is imminent, at least to the extent necessary to defend against such litigation. Moreover, the statute should present no impediment to informal investigatory contact with former employees, since their knowledge of the patient's condition can only have arisen while in the service of the particular provider/defendant.

Id. at 1307 (footnote omitted). Therefore, the district court granted the petition for writ of certiorari and quashed that portion of the trial court's order which barred defendant nursing home from contacting former employees as part of its preparation for defense. Id. at 1308.

The holding in Manor...