Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

371 So. 2d 703

Docket No. 79-525.

Teperson v. Donato

David S. TEPERSON, M.D., Drs. Jose & Teperson, P.A., Stephen Z. Gervin, M.D., and Stephen Z. Gervin, M.D., P.A., Petitioners, v. Frank J. DONATO and L. Ann Donato, Respondents.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 5, 1979.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1979-06-05

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Lastly, we are confronted with the question of doctor/patient privilege as to persons not a party to the suit. Surely when one brings a medical malpractice suit, such as the instant case, one's medical history becomes the subject matter of the suit and he would waive any claim to privilege he might have under the law, if any. However, to permit a party to inject into the public record medical information of a stranger to the suit, under the guise that it has a bearing on the competency of the doctor, would be unconscionable. The question in medical malpractice is whether or not the doctor, in treating the plaintiff, used a standard of care commensurate with that used in the community and that question can be answered by utilizing other methods of proof than the invasion into medical records of strangers.”

quoted by 4 later decisions, including Newman v. Amente, McCann v. Foisy

Relies on 358 So. 2d 232 - Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Peralta

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1979-06-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 2002

10 state decisions

501979198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*704 Preddy, Kutner & Hardy and Robert J. Bogdanoff, Miami, for petitioners.

¶2Levy & Cohen and Jeffrey M. Mart, Miami, for respondents.

¶3Before HAVERFIELD, C.J., and BARKDULL and KEHOE, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5David S. Teperson, M.D., et al., defendants in a medical malpractice action, seek, by certiorari, review of an order denying in part their motion for protection and requiring them to produce copies of certain medical records.

¶6The respondents filed a complaint alleging medical malpractice against the petitioners, after the respondents had fully complied with the medical mediation action and received a finding of the medical mediation panel. Petitioners responded to this complaint in the form of a motion to dismiss, stating that the complaint failed to allege any specific deviations from the proper standard of care and, thus, did not state a cause of action for medical malpractice.

¶7The respondents subpoenaed the medical records custodian of the Biscayne Medical Center, directing him to bring to the deposition any and all records in the possession of the hospital indicating all surgeries performed at the hospital by the petitioners and all records showing the petitioners' patient going from surgery to intensive care. To block this subpoena duces tecum, the petitioners filed a motion for protection requesting that the trial court enter an order quashing the subpoena duces tecum served upon the Biscayne Medical Center. After a hearing, the trial court entered the order under review partially denying the petitioners' motion for protection and ordering that the Biscayne Medical Center produce copies of the operative notes and intensive care records pertaining to all patients who underwent back operations by the petitioners. However, the trial court ordered that the names of all such patients shall be deleted or otherwise removed from any such records that are produced. From that order, the petitioners now file this petition for certiorari review.

¶8The trial court erred in partially denying the petitioners' motion for protection. This issue has recently been determined in favor of the petitioners. Argonaut Insurance Co. v. Peralta,358 So.2d 232 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). In Argonaut, this court held that it was error for the trial court to order the production of medical records of persons not a party to the action: "The question of medical malpractice is whether or not the doctor, in treating the plaintiff, used a standard of care commensurate with that used in the community and that question can be answered by utilizing other methods of proof than the invasion into medical records of strangers."

¶9Therefore, the order under review requiring production is quashed.

/371/so2d/703 · .json · Public domain