Sligar v. Tucker
| Decision Date | 12 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--342,72--342 |
| Citation | 267 So.2d 54 |
| Parties | Howard SLIGAR and Georgia Lee Sligar, his wife, Petitioners, v. Joseph B. TUCKER, M.D., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bruce S. Bullock of Marks Gray Conroy & Gibbs, Jacksonville, for respondents--Tucker, Sowell and Gold Reeves Vann & White.
Charles A. Hayes of Preddy Haddad Kutner & Hardy, Miami, for respondent--Indian River County Hospital District.
By petition for writ of certiorari the plaintiffs (in a negligence action against a hospital and certain physicians) seek review of an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for production, inspection and copying of certain reports.
The evidence shows that the reports which plaintiffs sought to have produced were those which the several defendants made to their respective liability Petitioners contend vigorously that since the hospital routinely required an 'incident report' to be made and submitted by its personnel whenever any untoward event occurred in regard to patient care, such 'incident report' became a part of the hospital's business records under F.S. Section 92.36, F.S.A., and hence discoverable. The only evidence pertaining to the hospital's obtaining such incident report comes from the deposition of the hospital administrator. This witness made it clear that the so-called 'incident report' was a standard form provided by its liability insurer, that such reports were processed routinely by the several department heads or staff of the hospital in any situation where it appeared to them that there might be possible action or liability, and that such reports were then routinely submitted to the administrator who in turn forwarded the same to the liability insurer. Thus, it appears that factually such 'incident reports' are not a part of the hospital business records as contemplated by F.S. Section 92.36, F.S.A., but even if they were, they would nonetheless retain their privileged status under the rationale of Vann v. State, supra.
insurers. There is no question but that the reports concerned an event which foreseeably could be (and in fact subsequently was) made the basis of a claim covered by the respective insurance policies of the hospital and the physicians, and there is no question but that such reports were submitted at the request of the respective insurers, for use in connection with the anticipated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stambor v. One Hundred Seventy-Second Collins Corp.
...Winn-Dixie Stores v. Nakutis, 435 So.2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), pet. for review denied, 446 So.2d 100 (Fla.1984); Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So.2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 271 So.2d 146 (Fla.1972); Grand Union Co. v. Patrick, 247 So.2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). This further supports our v......
-
Millard Mall Servs., Inc. v. Bolda
...prepared may still qualify as work product. See Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Scott, 481 So.2d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) ; Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So.2d 54, 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). Such reports, including those created after a slip and fall has been reported,certainly are not prepared because of some......
-
Federal Exp. Corp. v. Cantway, 4D00-3546.
...routinely prepared may still be work product. See Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Scott, 481 So.2d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So.2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). The fact that the manuals reviewed by the trial court "speak of prevention as the reason for requiring said reports" and ......
-
West American Ins. Co. v. Neva Products, Inc., 86-446
...Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So.2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), petition for review denied, 446 So.2d 100 (Fla.1984); Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So.2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 271 So.2d 146 (Fla.1972); City of Sarasota v. Colbert, 97 So.2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957); but see Cotton States Mutual......