Opinion ID: 1822772
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A. The Certified Question Should Be Revised

Text: The certified question is not supported by the record and, therefore, should be revised. The certified question asks whether Florida's impact rule applies in a case in which it is alleged that the infliction of emotional injuries has resulted from a clinical laboratory's breach of a duty of confidentiality under section 381.004(3)(f). Abril v. Dep't of Corr., 884 So.2d 206, 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). No such case is before this Court. The Abrils have repeatedly disclaimed any reliance upon the duty of confidentiality created by section 381.004(3)(f). As stated in their brief to us: For the reasons stated in this Brief, Respondents do not believe this case concerns this certified question, because Respondents do not rely on Section 381.004 at all in their Amended Complaint. . . . . . . . Respondents' cause of action for medical malpractice relies upon expert witnesses who will testify, as they have indicated in their reports, that Continental violated prevailing standards of practice when its employees negligently disclosed results of confidential blood test results to persons not authorized to receive those results. Respondents will not rely upon Section 381.004 to prove breach of standards. Respondents will rely upon the testimony of a medical expert (pathologist with clinical laboratory experience) who will testify concerning the breach of prevailing professional standards. Amended Respondents' Answer Br. at 3-4 & n. 2 (emphasis added). The record confirms the Abrils' position. Their amended complaint never mentions or relies upon section 381.004. [6] It simply alleges that the laboratory breached its professional duty . . . in that it revealed the contents of Abril's HIV test results to persons not authorized to receive the information. In this light, the majority's statement that the Abrils essentially asserted a common law negligence claim against Continental utilizing the breach of the provisions of section 381.004(3)(f) as evidence of Continental's negligence has no basis in the record. Majority op. at 204. Consequently, because this case is clearly not a case in which it is alleged that [the injury] has resulted from a . . . breach of a duty of confidentiality under section 381.004(3)(f), majority op. at 202, the certified question should be revised.