FL: insurer's attys. plan to interview Pt.'s Dr.: breach of physician-patient confidentiality bar.

CASE FACTS: Patrice Danneman, the plaintiff in a suit which alleges that employees of Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc.(Shands), negligently caused the death of her husband, sought certiorari review of an order denying her motion to prohibit pre-deposition conferences between nonparty physicians employed by the University of Florida, also a nonparty, and counsel hired by Shands' insurer to represent the physicians at their depositions. The order would allow the physician witnesses to discuss the decedent's medical condition. The case was controlled by a Florida Court decision in Harmon v. Roper, 945 So. 534 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), and a Florida Supreme Court decision in Acosta v. Richter, 671 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1996). The court granted the petition and quashed the trial court's order.

COURT'S OPINION: The court rejected Shand's contention. It noted that Shands raised the same constitutional issues that were raised in Harmon. Specifically, Shands contended that the courts application of Harmon violated the physicians' constitutional right to counsel protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment and their rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court concluded that even though the court in Harmon did not discuss the constitutional issues raised, the court's silence supported the necessary conclusion that those issues were considered and rejected. In Harmon, the court granted relief based upon the applicable section of the law, which it could not have done had it been persuaded that the statute was constitutionally infirm. The court concluded that it was bound by Harmon under the doctrine of stare decisis. The court went on to note that the doctrine of stare decisis, or the obligation of the court to abide by its own precedent, is grounded on the need for stability in the law and has been a fundamental tenet of Anglo-American jurisprudence for centuries. Further, the court noted that in Acosta the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the limitations on disclosure in the Florida Statutes are "somehow violative of a defendant physician's First Amendment rights to free speech." The court noted that it had previously explained that there are only four circumstances that would allow a health care practictioner or provider to discuss a patient's medical condition and treatment, all as set out in Hannon. The court found that none of those four circumstances could be found in this case. The legislature created the physician-patient privilege "where none existed before," and provided for an explicit but limited scheme for the disclosure of personal medical information. The court observed that although Shands argued that the statute was ill-conceived, that was a matter for the legislature to address. Danneman v. Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc., 2009 -FL- 0317.060.

Meet the Editor & Publisher: A. David Tammelleo, JD, is a nationally recognized authority on health care law. Practicing law for over 40 years. tie concentrates in health care law with the Rhode Island firm of A. David Tammelleo & Associates. He has presented seminars on medical, nursing and hospital law throughout the United Slates Ira addition to his writings as Editor of Medical Law's, Nursing Law's & Hospital Law's Regan Report, his legal articles have been published in the most prestigious health law journals. A prolitic writer, his thousands of articles, as well as his achievements as all attorney and lecturer, have won him recognition in Martindale-Hubbell's Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers,, Marquis Who's Who in American Law, Who's in America and Who's Who in the World.