Adventist Health System/Sunbelt Health v. Judge
1999 WL 682628, 739 So. 2d 695, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 11870 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Information regarding a physician's alleged threats against another physician involved in the same patient's care is discoverable in a medical malpractice action, as it is relevant to the physician's credibility and motivation, and is not protected by statutory peer review or risk management privileges unless directly pertaining to a formal investigation of the medical treatment or an incident report.
Facts:
- Martha T. Judge received medical treatment, including surgery, from Dr. Neal Powell, who was assisted by neurosurgeon Dr. Alan Appley.
- Martha T. Judge subsequently died.
- After Mrs. Judge’s death, Dr. Powell verbally threatened Dr. Appley on at least two occasions because Dr. Powell perceived that Dr. Appley was critical of the medical treatment Mrs. Judge received.
- Dr. Appley and his wife conveyed the content of Dr. Powell’s alleged threats to certain members of Florida Hospital’s security and management personnel.
- Joseph K. Judge, as personal representative of his deceased wife's estate, filed a medical malpractice action against Dr. Powell and Florida Hospital Orlando for her wrongful death.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph K. Judge, as personal representative of his deceased wife's estate, filed a medical malpractice action against Florida Hospital Orlando and Dr. Neal Powell in a trial court.
- Mr. Judge deposed Dr. Alan Appley, during which Dr. Appley testified about alleged threats from Dr. Powell and reporting those threats to Florida Hospital personnel.
- Mr. Judge served eleven interrogatories on Florida Hospital seeking information about Dr. and Mrs. Appley’s reports of Dr. Powell’s alleged threats.
- Florida Hospital served answers to eight interrogatories but objected to interrogatories 9, 10, and 11, asserting statutory privilege (risk management, peer review, quality assurance) and irrelevancy.
- Mr. Judge filed a motion to compel answers to the objected-to interrogatories.
- The trial court held a hearing and ruled that Florida Hospital’s objections were untimely, the interrogatories were relevant to credibility, and they did not seek privileged information.
- The trial court entered a written order granting Mr. Judge’s motion to compel answers to interrogatories 9, 10, and 11.
- Florida Hospital filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal, seeking review of the non-final order compelling discovery.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court depart from the essential requirements of law by compelling discovery of information regarding a physician's alleged threats against an assisting physician, when the information is relevant to credibility and is not explicitly covered by statutory peer review or risk management privileges?
Opinions:
Majority - ANTOON, C.J.
No, the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in compelling discovery, because information concerning a physician's alleged threats is reasonably related to credibility issues and does not seek privileged information under Florida's peer review or risk management statutes. The court first noted that Florida Hospital's objections to the interrogatories were untimely, as they were not served within the required thirty days. The court then reasoned that the discovery of information regarding Dr. Powell’s alleged threats against Dr. Appley was relevant to issues of Dr. Powell's motivation, truthfulness, and potential attempts to influence testimony, noting that the concept of relevancy is broader in the discovery context than in the trial context. Furthermore, the court concluded that the interrogatories did not seek privileged information under statutory exemptions for peer review records (§ 395.0193(7), Fla. Stat.) or incident reports from risk management programs (§ 395.0197(4), Fla. Stat.). This was because the interrogatories did not seek information regarding a peer review investigation concerning the medical treatment rendered to Mrs. Judge, there was no indication the threats themselves were the subject of a peer review investigation, and Dr. Appley was not a member of the peer review panel. The information also did not fall under the definition of an 'incident report' for risk management purposes.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of discovery in medical malpractice actions, particularly regarding information that may touch upon a physician's conduct outside of direct patient care review. It emphasizes that relevancy for discovery purposes is broad, encompassing issues of credibility and motivation. More significantly, it provides a crucial limitation on statutory privileges for peer review and risk management, preventing hospitals from using these privileges as a blanket shield for all internal communications, especially when the information does not directly relate to the specified purpose of the privilege (e.g., review of medical treatment or incident reports). This ruling ensures that information critical to evaluating a witness's truthfulness or intent can be accessed by litigants.
