Rojas v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 September 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 82692,82692 |
| Citation | 641 So.2d 855 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly S413 Carlos E. ROJAS, et ux., Petitioners, v. RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Andy Treusch, North Miami, for petitioners.
Michael J. Murphy and Julie Layne Greenberg of Gaebe, Murphy, Mullen & Antonelli, Coral Gables, for respondents.
Scott A. Mager of the Law Offices of Scott A. Mager, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, amicus curiae for Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers.
We have for review Rojas v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 625 So.2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), which concerns the discovery of medical records from an out-of-state medical provider. In Rojas, the district court held that a trial judge has the authority to require a party to sign a medical authorization form to allow the opposing party to obtain out-of-state medical records consistent with what would be available if the medical provider were within the jurisdiction of Florida. In so ruling, the district court certified conflict with Johnston v. Donnelly, 581 So.2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), and Reinhardt v. Northside Motors, Inc., 479 So.2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). We accept jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), of the Florida Constitution. For the reasons expressed, we approve the district court's decision in the instant case and harmonize it with Johnston and Reinhardt.
In this case, Massachusetts residents Carlos and Ana Rojas were injured in an automobile accident in Dade County, Florida. As a result of that accident, they filed suit against Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. (Ryder), seeking damages for injuries received from the accident and for aggravation of previously existing medical conditions. The Rojases were treated both before and after the accident at two Massachusetts medical facilities. During the course of discovery, Ryder attempted to obtain the Rojases' medical records from those facilities through subpoenas filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.351 (). The medical facilities refused to respond to Ryder's subpoenas requesting the records.
After the medical facilities failed to supply the requested records, Ryder moved to compel the Rojases to sign written release authorizations directing the facilities to release the medical records directly to Ryder's counsel. In granting the motion, the trial judge directed the medical facilities to furnish
any and all documentation generated in connection with [the Rojases], including but not limited to: reports, charts, files, correspondence, notes, memoranda, radiology studies of any kind or nature, test findings, statements, billings, treatment of any kind or nature, including all psychological and psychiatric records for [the Rojases].
After the trial judge granted the motion, the Rojases appealed to the Third District Court of Appeal seeking to quash the trial judge's order.
On appeal, the Rojases claimed that Ryder was not entitled to all of the medical records at issue because only a portion of the records were relevant to the litigation. Further, the Rojases contended that the proper procedure would be for Ryder to file a request for production under rule 1.350 (). The district court affirmed the trial court's order, stating that trial judges have broad discretion in discovery matters and that the Rojases could be protected from the disclosure of irrelevant records by simply asking the trial court to conduct an in camera review of the records before releasing them to Ryder. The district court reasoned that, under the circumstances, this procedure would lead to more ethical and efficient litigation than the procedure set forth in rule 1.350 because it would allow the trial judge rather than a party to determine what records were discoverable. The district court acknowledged that its decision conflicted with decisions of the Second and Fourth District Courts of Appeal. See Johnston; Reinhardt.
Both the Rojases and the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, which filed an amicus brief in this action, urge this Court to quash the district court's decision in this case, raising the same issues the Rojases raised before the district court. The Rojases also contend that, if Ryder did not want to receive the records through a rule 1.350 request for production to the Rojases, Ryder should have sought the records via Massachusetts law once the medical facilities refused to honor the Florida subpoenas. We reject these contentions. As the district court noted in this case:
The order entered here was well within the power and discretion of the trial court. A trial court possesses broad discretion in overseeing discovery, and protecting the parties that come before it. The order entered here accomplishes the discovery of the sought after medical records in the most expeditious and practical way possible, by having the records released directly to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Winckler
...discovery and in protecting persons from whom discovery is sought. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c) ; Rojas v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 641 So. 2d 855, 857 (Fla. 1994). In this instance, the trial court's order cited specific evidence supporting its conclusion that the Chairman was personally invo......
-
Hett v. Barron-Lunde
...court possesses broad discretion in overseeing discovery, and protecting the parties that come before it." Rojas v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 641 So. 2d 855, 857 (Fla. 1994) (quoting Rojas v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 625 So. 2d 106, 107-08 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) ). The rules governing discover......
-
Acosta v. Richter
...the attorneys from discussing the specific medical condition of the patient with the treating physicians.3 In Rojas v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 641 So.2d 855 (Fla.1994), we held that a trial court has the authority to require parties injured in an automobile accident to sign a limited medi......
-
Bush v. Schiavo
...protecting the parties that come before it." Rojas v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 625 So.2d 106, 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), approved, 641 So.2d 855, 857 (Fla.1994). Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c), a trial court may, upon a showing of good cause, issue a protective order "to......
-
Florida family law rules of procedure
...a party to execute a medical release form requiring production to other party of medical records. Rojas v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc ., 641 So.2d 855 (Fla. 1994); Doelfel v. Trevisani, 644 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 1994). Lyons v. Lyons When the response to a request for production of documents is tha......
-
An Overview of the "Apex Doctrine" and its Applicability Under Florida Law.
...to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence). (38) Id. at 1270 (citing FLA. R. CIV. P. 1.280(c); Rojas v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 641 So. 2d 855, 857 (Fla. (39) Id. at 1270. (40) Id. (41) Id. (42) Id. (43) Id. (44) Id. (quoting Moskowitz, Deposing "Apex" Officials in Florida, 72 FLA. ......
-
Preventing Re-Victimization of Sexual Harassment Victims: The Limits of Discovery of Plaintiff's Intimate Past in Sexual Harassment Suits.
...her sexual history. (1) FLA. R. CIV. P. 1.280(c); FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c). (2) FLA. R. CIV. P. 1.280(c). (3) Rojas v. Ryder Truck Rental, 641 So. 2d 855, 857 (Fla. 1994) (quoting Rojas v. Ryder Truck Rental, 625 So. 2d 106, 107 (Fla. 3d DCA (4) SP Healthcare Holdings v. Surgery Ctr. Holdings,......