Holly v. Auld, s. 62785

• Decision Date: 03 May 1984
• Docket Number: Nos. 62785,62778,s. 62785
• Parties: Eugene HOLLY, M.D., Petitioner, v. Albert W. AULD, M.D., Respondent. Hubert L. ROSOMOFF, M.D., and Albert Ehlert, M.D., Petitioners, v. Albert W. AULD, M.D., Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 217

450 So.2d 217

Eugene HOLLY, M.D., Petitioner, v. Albert W. AULD, M.D., Respondent.

Hubert L. ROSOMOFF, M.D., and Albert Ehlert, M.D., Petitioners, v. Albert W. AULD, M.D., Respondent.

Nos. 62785, 62778.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 3, 1984.

Marjorie Gadarian Graham of Jones & Foster, West Palm Beach, for Eugene Holly, M.D.

Michael B. Davis of Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder & Carson, West Palm Beach, for Hubert L. Rosomoff, M.D.

Kent S. Pratt of Cibula, Gaunt & Pratt, West Palm Beach, for Albert Ehlert, M.D.

Stephen Cahen, Miami, and Edna L. Caruso, West Palm Beach, for respondent.

Emil C. Marquardt, Jr. of McMullen, Everett, Logan, Marquardt & Cline, Clearwater, for Florida Hospital Association and Florida Medical Association, amicus curiae.

Claude H. Tison, Jr. and William B. Taylor, IV of MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for Florida Dental Association, amicus curiae.

McDONALD, Judge.

These two cases, seeking review of the same district court opinion and now consolidated, have been certified to us by the Fourth District Court of Appeal as involving the following question of great public importance:

Is the discovery privilege set out in section 768.40(4), Florida Statutes, limited to civil actions against providers of health care services based on medical malpractice?

Auld v. Holly, 418 So.2d 1020, 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution. ¹ We answer the certified question in the negative, finding that the discovery privilege of section 768.40(4) is not so limited, and we therefore quash that portion of the district court's opinion holding to the contrary.

The plaintiff below, Dr. Auld, applied for staff privileges at Good Samaritan Hospital in West Palm Beach. He signed a release relieving from liability hospital representatives and persons furnishing information concerning his application to the hospital. Pursuant to hospital rules, Dr. Holly, chief of neuro-surgery at Good Samaritan and one of the petitioners here, interviewed Auld. Following the interview Holly contacted a number of physicians, including Dr. Rosomoff and two other petitioners, to verify information given by Auld. Holly then submitted a report to the hospital's credentials committee. Incorporating information given by the other petitioners, Holly's report noted, inter alia, that Auld had "apparently" done unnecessary surgical procedures and had provided inadequate postoperative care to patients. The credentials committee denied Auld's application.

Auld then filed suit against the four petitioners, alleging that their statements had resulted in his denial of staff privileges and loss of reputation, referrals, patients, and fees. Auld sought discovery of the credential committee's records and sought to examine witnesses concerning the denial of staff privileges. He alleged such discovery was necessary to refute the petitioners' claim that the denial was based upon reasons other than the allegedly defamatory statements made about Auld by the petitioners. The trial court held that section 768.40(4), Florida Statutes (1977), barred such discovery. The jury in the defamation action returned a special verdict finding that the allegedly defamatory remarks had been made but that they did not "tend to expose the plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, or contempt or tend to injure the plaintiff in his profession." The jury made no findings as to whether the statements were true or privileged. The court entered judgment in accordance with the verdict.

On appeal the fourth district reversed and remanded. It found the discovery privilege set forth in section 768.40(4) limited to civil actions against providers of health services based on medical malpractice and then certified its decision to this Court. The district court began its analysis of the question subsequently certified to this court "by noting that almost all of the provisions of Section 768.40, Florida Statutes (1981), are ambiguous." 418 So.2d at 1023. In particular, the district court found subsection (4), providing medical review committees with a limited privilege against discovery in civil actions, to be "fairly susceptible to different constructions." Id. at 1025. From this analytical starting point, the district court embarked on a search for the real legislative intent behind section 768.40, eventually concluding that the privilege contained therein is applicable only to medical malpractice actions. We disagree with that conclusion.

Florida case law contains a plethora of rules and extrinsic aids to guide courts in their efforts to discern legislative intent from ambiguously worded statutes. However,

[w]hen the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion for resorting to the rules of statutory interpretation and construction; the statute must be given its plain and obvious meaning.

A.R. Douglass, Inc. v. McRainey, 102 Fla. 1141, 1144, 137 So. 157, 159 (1931). See also Carson v. Miller, 370 So.2d 10 (Fla.1979); Ross v. Gore, 48 So.2d 412 (Fla.1950). It has also been accurately stated that courts of this state are

without power to construe an unambiguous statute in a way which would extend, modify, or limit, its express terms or its reasonable and obvious implications. To do so would be an abrogation of legislative power.

American Bankers Life Assurance Company of Florida v. Williams, 212 So.2d 777, 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968) (emphasis added). It is also true that a literal interpretation of the language of a statute need not be given when to do so would lead to an unreasonable or ridiculous conclusion. Johnson v. Presbyterian Homes of Synod of Florida, Inc., 239 So.2d 256 (Fla.1970). Such a departure from the letter of the statute, however, "is sanctioned by the courts only when there are cogent reasons for believing that the letter [of the law] does not accurately disclose the [legislative] intent." State ex rel. Hanbury v. Tunnicliffe, 98 Fla. 731, 735, 124 So. 279, 281 (1929).

The district court conceded that it was "arguable" that Dr. Auld sued Dr. Holly for a matter that was the subject of review and evaluation by the credentials committee, thus making the discovery privilege of section 768.40(4) applicable. 418 So.2d at 1025. The court went on, however, to reason that the policy in favor of broad discovery compelled a narrow construction of any statute which limited a litigant's right to discovery. Id. There are, however, substantial legislative policy reasons to restrict discovery of hospitals' committee proceedings and it is not the court's duty or prerogative to modify or shade clearly expressed legislative intent in order to uphold a policy favored by the court. See McDonald v. Roland, 65 So.2d 12 (Fla.1953).

Subsection (4) of what is now section 768.40 was enacted as chapter 73-50, Laws of Florida. The preamble and language of that enactment readily reveal the legislature's intent and its policy reasons. ² In an effort to control the escalating cost of health care in the state, the legislature deemed it wise to encourage a degree of self-regulation by the medical profession through peer review and evaluation. ³ The legislature also recognized that meaningful peer review would not be possible without a limited guarantee of confidentiality for the information and opinions elicited from physicians regarding the competence of their colleagues.

It is apparent that the need for confidentiality is as great when a credentials committee attempts to elicit doctors' honest opinions about one of their colleagues for purposes of determining fitness for staff privileges as when attempting to determine whether the practice of a doctor on the staff meets the standards of the medical community. A doctor questioned by a review committee would reasonably be just as reluctant to make statements, however truthful or justifiable, which might form the basis of a defamation action against him as he would be to proffer opinions which could be used against a colleague in a malpractice suit. The discovery privilege of subsection (4) was clearly designed to provide that degree of confidentiality necessary for the full, frank medical peer evaluation which the legislature sought to encourage. Neither the language of the statute, nor the legislative intent discernable therefrom, admits of an interpretation which would limit the discovery privilege to medical malpractice actions and would preclude its application to defamation actions.

Inevitably, such a discovery privilege will impinge upon the rights of some civil litigants to discovery of information which might be helpful, or even essential, to their causes. We must assume that the legislature balanced this potential detriment against the potential for health care cost containment offered by effective self-policing by the medical community and found the latter to be of greater weight. It is precisely this sort of policy judgment which is exclusively the province of the legislature rather than the courts.

We conclude that the discovery privilege provided in section 768.40(4) is not limited to medical malpractice actions and, in fact, includes defamation actions arising out of the matters which are the subject of evaluation and review by hospital credentials committees. The ruling of the trial court in this case, precluding Dr. Auld from obtaining discovery of the records of Good Samaritan Hospital's Credentials Committee and refusing to allow Dr. Auld to examine witnesses concerning the committee's denial of his application for staff privileges, was, therefore, correct. That portion of the opinion of the Fourth District Court of Appeal holding to the contrary is quashed.

It is so ordered.

ALDERMAN, C.J., BOYD and OVERTON, JJ., concur.

EHRLICH, J., dissents with an opinion, in which ADKINS, J., concurs.

SHAW, J., dissents with an opinion, in which ADKINS, J., concurs.

EHRLICH,...