Mount Sinai Medical Center of Greater Miami, Inc. v. Bernstein
| Decision Date | 09 November 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-1178,94-1178 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D2338 MOUNT SINAI MEDICAL CENTER OF GREATER MIAMI, INC., Petitioner, v. Lester BERNSTEIN, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John D. Kelner, Miami, for petitioner.
Hoppe, Backmeyer & Stokes and Bill Hoppe, Miami, for respondents.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and LEVY, JJ.
Lester Bernstein alleges that while he was under the care of Mount Sinai Medical Center, the hospital's treatment of him fell below acceptable medical standards, resulting in serious bodily injury and mental anguish. On March 10, 1994, Mr. Bernstein and his wife filed the instant medical malpractice action against Mt. Sinai, among other defendants. On the same date, as part of the discovery process, the Bernsteins served Mt. Sinai with interrogatories. Mt. Sinai filed answers thereto, objecting to interrogatories 12 and 13, claiming that the information sought was privileged under sections 766.101 and 395.0193, Florida Statutes (1993).
Those interrogatories read:
12. Were there any written reports of any medical review committees with regard to the incident?
13. If the answer to the above question is yes, please state the dates of the reports, the author of the reports and the names and addresses of all people participating on the committee that produced the report.
After a hearing, the trial court overruled Mt. Sinai's objections. In response, Mt. Sinai filed the instant petition for writ of common law certiorari.
Because the trial court overruled the hospital's objections, thereby exposing to disclosure certain matters to which the hospital asserted privilege, we are authorized to entertain this petition for common law certiorari. Miami Heart Institute v. Reis, 638 So.2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Manor Care of Dunedin, Inc. v. Keiser, 611 So.2d 1305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Suburban Propane v. Estate of Pitcher, 564 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). We grant the petition and quash the order under review.
Section 766.101 provides:
(1) As used in this section:
(a) The term "medical review committee" or "committee" means:
1.a. A committee of a hospital ...
and provides at subsection (5),
The investigations, proceedings and record of a committee as described in the preceding subsections shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil or administrative action against a provider of professional health services arising out of the matters which are the subject of evaluation and review by such committee.
These sections shield such hospital activities from discovery. In All Children's Hospital, Inc. v. Davis, 590 So.2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), the trial court ordered a hospital to reveal the names and addresses of peer review committee members present when the case was discussed. As the Second District held:
Discovery of material pertaining to peer review is protected by section 766.101, Florida Statutes (1989). While the names of the committee members are not specifically protected by the statute, the release of the names would neither be relevant nor lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Fla.R.Civ.Pro. 1.280(b).
The Bernsteins' claim absent the order under review, they will be unable to prove their case. In Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217 (Fla.1984), the supreme court held that the discovery privilege was designed to provide that "degree of confidentiality necessary for the full, frank medical review and evaluation which the legislature sought to encourage" by such peer reviews. The court recognized that 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." Id. at 220. The legislature was presumed to have considered that potential detriment in enacting the discovery privilege. See Burton v. Becker, 516 So.2d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). However, more to the point, the discovery privilege is not without limits.
Information presented to the committee does not become privileged simply because it is presented to the committee, and if such information is otherwise available from other sources, it may be discovered. Cruger v. Love, 599 So.2d 111 (Fla.1992). Assuming that a doctor or nurse presented testimony to the committee about his or her personal knowledge of the facts of the case, respondents could secure the names and addresses and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of America
...that are the subject matter of the litigation may be acquired through interrogatory and deposition, see Mount Sinai Medical Center v. Bernstein, 645 So.2d 530, 532 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994) and Moretti v. Lowe, 592 A.2d 855, 858 (R.I.1991). This latter option remains available to defendant in ......
-
Small v. Welldyne, Inc.
...action merely because they were presented during proceedings of such committee . . . ."); Mount Sinai Med. Ctr. of Greater Miami, Inc. v. Bernstein, 645 So.2d 530, 532 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994) (allowing the discovery of information from an individual's personal knowledge that is relevant ......
-
Century Medical Centers, Inc. v. Marin
...court overruled the objection. We conclude that the interrogatories are perfectly proper. See Mount Sinai Medical Center of Greater Miami, Inc. v. Bernstein, 645 So.2d 530, 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). They are directed to Century's claims that Dr. Marin breached the employment contract. Obvious......
-
Munroe Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Rountree
...but could not be required to testify as to what was told to the peer review committee. See Mount Sinai Medical Center of Greater Miami, Inc. v. Bernstein, 645 So.2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Thus, during her deposition questioning Ms. Rountree was authorized to ask Dr. Overcash to describe th......