Tanchel v. Shoemaker
Citation | 928 So.2d 440 |
Decision Date | 28 April 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 5D06-237.,5D06-237. |
Parties | Nancy A. TANCHEL, M.D., Petitioner, v. John Benjamin SHOEMAKER and Jeanne Shoemaker, etc., Respondent. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
W. Cleveland Acree, II and Daniel A. Tressler, II, of The Unger Law Group, P.L., Orlando, for Petitioner.
Alan J. Landerman of The Nation Law Firm, Longwood, for Respondent.
Nancy A. Tanchel, M.D., seeks certiorari review of an order compelling the production of "all [redacted] patient records of Liberty Laser Eye Center [in Vienna, Virginia] from the date of inception of [Dr. Tanchel's] practice through August 19, 2003, in which PRK surgery was performed. ..." We grant the petition and quash the order.
John B. Shoemaker filed a medical malpractice action against Dr. Tanchel, alleging that Dr. Tanchel was negligent when she performed PRK laser eye surgery on him in March 2000. In late 2002, Dr. Tanchel relocated her practice from Florida to the Liberty Laser Eye Center in Virginia. Mr. Shoemaker sought discovery of certain patient records regarding similar procedures performed by Dr. Tanchel in Virginia more than two years after Mr. Shoemaker's surgery. Dr. Tanchel objected to the production of those records on relevance grounds; however, the trial court overruled that objection and this proceeding follows.
Certiorari is the appropriate remedy when a discovery order departs from the essential requirements of law, causing material injury throughout the remainder of the proceedings and effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal. See Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1987). Certiorari can be a proper remedy for overbroad discovery orders. Wooten Honeywell & Kest, P.A. v. Posner, 556 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). However, not every erroneous discovery order creates certiorari jurisdiction. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla.1995). Trial courts have broad discretion in discovery matters and discovery orders will only be overturned where the court has abused that discretion. Nat'l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Dunn, 751 So.2d 777 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). This Court has, however, "embrace[d] the Supreme Court's conclusion that litigants are not entitled to carte blanche discovery of irrelevant material." Residence Inn by Marriott v. Cecile Resort, Ltd., 822 So.2d 548, 550 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Cf. Davich v. Norman Bros. Nissan, Inc., 739 So.2d 138 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) ( ).
In support of the discovery order, Mr. Shoemaker relies on Amente v. Newman, 653 So.2d 1030 (Fla.1995), to support his assertion that the documents requested are relevant to notice, causation, and impeachment. In Amente, the doctor being sued for malpractice testified that he had followed the same delivery method for his morbidly obese obstetrical patients for some time without complication, and that he did not believe his delivery method caused the injury. Id. at 1032-33. The plaintiff suggested that if the doctor had not used the same method with similar patients or if others had suffered injury when the doctor had used the same method, then the information would be relevant to show causation, to show the doctor had noticed that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nucci v. Target Corp.
...of irrelevant material.’ ” Life Care Ctrs. of Am. v. Reese, 948 So.2d 830, 832 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (quoting Tanchel v. Shoemaker, 928 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) ). Because the permissible scope of discovery is so broad, a “trial court is given wide discretion in dealing with discove......
-
American Educ. Enter.S LLC. v. Bd. of Tr.S of The INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND
...production of the financial documents is unreasonably broad based on the time frame at issue. 4 See Id. at 1006; Tanchel v. Shoemaker, 928 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Caribbean Sec. Sys., Inc., 486 So.2d at 655. Second, the order requires the disclosure of corporate financial docume......
-
Harborside Healthcare, LLC v. Jacobson
...Devereux Fla. Treatment Network, Inc. v. McIntosh , 940 So.2d 1202, 1205–06 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) ; then citing Tanchel v. Shoemaker , 928 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) ; and then citing Wooten, Honeywell & Kest, P.A. v. Posner , 556 So.2d 1245, 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) ). Similarly, "an......
-
Bailey v. State, 3D12–1426.
...of discretion constituting “fatal error.” Am. S. Co. v. Tinter, Inc., 565 So.2d 891, 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Tanchel v. Shoemaker, 928 So.2d 440, 441–42 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). The rationale underlying the trial court's discovery order, even if factually unsupported, does not constitute an abu......