Opinion ID: 1708176
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Improper political rhetoric in the title and summary

Text: Opponent argues that the summary contains improper political rhetoric. The summary states: Current Florida law restricts information available to patients related to investigations of adverse medical incidents, such as medical malpractice. This amendment would give patients the right to review, upon request, records of health care facilities' or providers' adverse medical incidents, including those which could cause injury or death. Provides that patients' identitie [sic] should not be disclosed. This Court stated in Evans v. Firestone, 457 So.2d 1351, 1355 (Fla.1984), [T]he ballot summary is no place for subjective evaluation of special impact. The ballot summary should tell the voter the legal effect of the amendment, and no more. The political motivation behind a given change must be propounded outside the voting booth. Id. Opponent argues that the medical malpractice and including those which could cause injury or death language is superfluous, as the comments are not necessary to describe the amendment. As support for its argument, opponent cites to Evans. In Evans, this Court held that the editorial comment, thus avoiding unnecessary costs, in a summary judgment reform proposal violated the rules governing the ballot summary. See Evans, 457 So.2d at 1355. The Court noted in Evans that the unnecessary costs statement was hotly contested and no logical explanation was given of how a constitutional summary judgment rule would be more effective in avoiding costs than is the existing summary judgment rule. Id. Although the medical malpractice and injury or death comments may not be necessary to the summary, they do accurately describe the proposed amendment.