Case ID: so2d_404/html/0832-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LOWER FLORIDA KEYS HOSPITAL DISTRICT d/b/a Florida Keys Memorial Hospital, Petitioner, v. Galen SKELTON, a minor, by and through her parents and next friends, Sanetta J. Skelton and James C. Skelton, individually; The Public Health Trust of Dade County, Florida, d/b/a Jackson Memorial Hospital, Stanley Coira, M.D., Stanley Coira, P.A., Richard C. Walker, M.D., Richard Walker, P.A., and Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund, Respondents.
    No. 81-1236.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Oct. 13, 1981.
    
      Carey, Dwyer, Cole, Selwood & Bernard and Michael C. Spring, Miami, for petitioner.
    Simons & Schlesinger and Carole A. Gardiner, Fort Lauderdale, for respondents.
    Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and JORGENSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Respondents (Skelton) commenced a medical malpractice action against the petitioner and the other respondents herein. The respondent, Dr. Coira, propounded interrogatories requesting collateral source information. Respondents (Skelton) objected to such interrogatories on the grounds that same was unconstitutional and deprived the respondents of due process. The trial court declared Section 768.50, Florida Statutes (1979) to be unconstitutional as depriving respondents of due process, and sustained respondents’ objections to subject interrogatories. Petitioner seeks review of that order via certiorari.

We quash the order under review under the reasoning of the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in Pinillos v. Cedars of Lebanon Hospital Corporation, 403 So.2d 365 (Fla.1981), 1981, holding Section 768.50, Florida Statutes (1979) constitutional. 
      
      . This opinion is not to be construed as an open invitation to file petitions for certiorari when a trial court has held a statute unconstitutional prior to a final determination. In our discretion we entertain this petition because the impact of the trial court’s order, if not reviewed until after final judgment, prohibits certain discovery which the Supreme Court has approved.
     
      
      . We note that this decision was rendered after the trial court entered the order under review in this case.