Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/170-So-3d-873-Fla-App-1-Dist-2015-1D14-3178-Weaver-v-Myers-614775563
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 21:52:37+00:00

Document:
Judge Panel: WOLF, J. ROWE and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR. ROWE and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
Released for Publication August 6, 2015.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. J. Scott Duncan and Edward P. Nickinson, III, Judges.
Robert S. Peck, Center for Constitutional Litigation, P.C., Washington, DC, and Virginia M. Buchanan and W. Cameron Stephenson of Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Rafferty & Proctor, P.A., Penscacola, for Appellant.
Philip M. Burlington and Adam J. Richardson of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Amicus Curiae Florida Justice Association, in support of Appellant.
Mark Hicks and Erik P. Bartenhagen of Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein, P.A., Miami, for Appellees.
Mark K. Delegal and Stephen H. Grimes of Holland & Knight LLP, Tallahassee, and William W. Large, Florida Justice Reform Institute, Tallahassee, for Amicus Curiae Florida Justice Reform Institute, and Jeffery Michael Scott, Florida Medical Association, for Amicus Curiae Florida Medical Association, in support of Appellees.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Allen Winsor, Solicitor General, and Adam S. Tanenbaum, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, Tallahassee, for Amicus Curiae State of Florida, in support of Appellees.
WOLF, J. ROWE and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
determination of the validity of the statutory changes.
The medical malpractice presuit notice statutes require a claimant to provide a potential defendant with notice prior to filing suit and implement a 90-day tolling period after service of the notice in order for the parties to investigate the claim presuit. § 766.106(3), Fla. Stat. (2013).
Prior to the 2013 amendments, five methods of informal discovery were available to the parties when conducting this presuit informal investigation, including the taking of unsworn statements. § 766.106(6)(b)(1)-(5), Fla. Stat. (2012).
However, the amendments added a new method of informal discovery for prospective defendants: interviews of treating health care providers. See Ch. 2013-108 § 3, Laws of Fla. (codified at § 766.106(6)(b)(5), Fla. Stat. (2013)); Ch. 2013-108 § 4, Laws of Fla. (codified at § 766.1065(3), Fla. Stat. (2013)).
These interviews are to be " consistent with the authorization for release of protected health information," which must be signed by the claimant prior to the initiation of the medical malpractice lawsuit. § 766.106(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013). The authorization itself explicitly provides permission for potential defendants to conduct ex parte interviews with the claimant's health care providers. § 766.1065(3)(E), Fla. Stat.
The medical malpractice claimant may revoke the authorization for release of protected health information; however, if the claimant does so, the presuit notice that was served with the authorization " is deemed retroactively void from the date of issuance, and any tolling effect that the presuit notice may have had on any applicable statute-of-limitations period is retroactively rendered void." § 766.1065(3)(G), Fla. Stat.
Appellant filed a complaint in which she requested a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against appellee on July 1, 2013. She alleged that she had contemplated filing a medical malpractice action, but was concerned that the amendments to the medical malpractice presuit notice statutes were violative of both the Florida Constitution and HIPAA.
The trial court, after a hearing on both parties' motions for summary judgment, determined the 2013 amendments were constitutional and not preempted by HIPAA.
Our review of the trial court's determination regarding the constitutionality of the statute and its amendments is de novo. Caribbean Conservation Corp. v. Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm'n, 838 So.2d 492, 500 (Fla. 2003). However, if a statute can be construed to be constitutional, it should be. VanBibber v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Ins. Co., 439 So.2d 880, 883 (Fla. 1983); see also Abdool v. Bondi, 141 So.3d 529, 538 (Fla. 2014).
Our review of the federal preemption issue is also de novo. Vreeland v. Ferrer, 71 So.3d 70, 72 (Fla. 2011).
IV. Do the Amendments Violate the Separation of Powers Doctrine?
Appellant first alleges that the amendments' addition of ex parte interviews to the permissible methods of informal discovery is a procedural change which impermissibly conflicts with the limitations on informal discovery methods as outlined by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.650.

References: § 766
 § 766
 § 3
 § 766
 § 4
 § 766
 § 766
 § 766
 § 766
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.