Source: https://www.medicalmalpracticelawyers.com/medical-malpractice-laws-2/florida-supreme-court-rules-unconstitutional-requirement-medical-malpractice-plaintiffs-authorize-ex-parte-communications-non-party-medical-providers/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:28:55+00:00

Document:
The Supreme Court of Florida (“Florida Supreme Court”) ruled in its 4-to-3 decision on November 9, 2017 that the amendment to Florida’s medical malpractice statute requiring plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases to authorize medical malpractice defendants’ attorneys to speak ex-parte (i.e., in secret, without the plaintiffs or their lawyers present) with their treating health care providers was an unconstitutional invasion of the plaintiffs’ privacy because the ex-parte communications could lead to the disclosure of private health information that is unrelated to the medical malpractice claims.
In 2013, the Florida Legislature amended the Florida medical malpractice statute to add secret, ex parte interviews to the list of informal discovery devices to which a medical malpractice claimant seeking redress must consent: “Interviews of treating health care providers. — A prospective defendant or his or her legal representative may interview the claimant’s treating health care providers consistent with the authorization for release of protected health information. This subparagraph does not require a claimant’s treating health care provider to submit to a request for an interview. Notice of the intent to conduct an interview shall be provided to the claimant or the claimant’s legal representative, who shall be responsible for arranging a mutually convenient date, time, and location for the interview within 15 days after the request is made. For subsequent interviews, the prospective defendant or his or her representative shall notify the claimant and his or her legal representative at least 72 hours before the subsequent interview. If the claimant’s attorney fails to schedule an interview, the prospective defendant or his or her legal representative may attempt to conduct an interview without further notice to the claimant or the claimant’s legal representative.” § 766.106(6)(b)5., Fla. Stat.; Ch. 2013-108, § 3, at 5, Laws of Fla.
The amended statute does not limit the number of interviews. Furthermore, if at any time the medical malpractice claimant’s attorney fails to schedule a requested interview, then the prospective defendant or his lawyers may unilaterally and without notice schedule the claimant’s treating health care providers for such an interview without any notice to the claimant whatsoever, and nothing prevents multiple attempts at securing such interviews.
Furthermore, the amended statute provides that the prospective medical malpractice defendant may interview the claimant’s treating health care providers ex parte in secret, without the claimant or the claimant’s attorney present: “This authorization expressly allows the persons or class of persons listed in subsections D.2.-4. above to interview the health care providers listed in subsections B.1.-2. above, without the presence of the Patient or the Patient’s attorney.” § 766.1065(3)E., Fla. Stat.; Ch. 2013-108, § 4, at 7, Laws of Fla.
The required authorization requires a medical malpractice claimant to expose health care providers to such clandestine, ex parte interviews not only with the prospective defendant, but also with a broad set of parties, including related insurers, expert witnesses, attorneys, and support staff.
The Florida Supreme Court held: “Noting the limited nature of our holding today and our severance principles, we make two strikes from the amended statutes. First, we strike in its entirety section 766.1065(3)E., Florida Statutes (2013), which contains the constitutionally infirm language: ‘This authorization expressly allows the persons or class of persons listed in subsections D.2.-4. above to interview the health care providers listed in subsections B.1.-2. above, without the presence of the Patient or the Patient’s attorney.’ § 766.1065(3)E., Fla. Stat. Second, we strike the last sentence from section 766.106(6)(b)5., Florida Statutes (2013), which contains the constitutionally infirm language: ‘If the claimant’s attorney fails to schedule an interview, the prospective defendant or his or her legal representative may attempt to conduct an interview without further notice to the claimant or the claimant’s legal representative.'” § 766.106(6)(b)5., Fla. Stat.
This entry was posted on Monday, November 13th, 2017 at 5:22 am. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

References: § 766
 § 3
 § 766
 § 4
 § 766
 § 766