Opinion ID: 1700466
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Self-Execution

Text: Both the First and the Fifth Districts below agreed that amendment 7 is self-executing. The Fifth District in Buster cited the definitions provided in the amendment, its relatively narrow purpose to override existing statutory law, and an expressed intent gleaned from its provisions that existing law was sufficient to implement the provisions of the amendment and that no further legislation was necessary. 932 So.2d at 355. The court also concluded that a contrary decision, finding that the amendment was not self-executing, would frustrate the will of the people, especially since the amendment states it was to be effective upon passage, leaving no time for the enactment of implementing legislation. Id. The First District's reasoning in Notami Hospital largely mirrors that of the Fifth District. The First District cited a presumption that constitutional provisions are self-executing and noted that the amendment defines, in detail, what records are discoverable, who is entitled to discovery, and states it is effective on the date it is approved by the voters. Notami Hosp., 927 So.2d at 144. We agree with both district courts that amendment 7 is self-executing. This Court explained the appropriate standard for determining whether constitutional provisions are self-executing in Gray v. Bryant, 125 So.2d 846 (Fla. 1960): The basic guide, or test, in determining whether a constitutional provision should be construed to be self-executing, or not self-executing, is whether or not the provision lays down a sufficient rule by means of which the right or purpose which it gives or is intended to accomplish may be determined, enjoyed, or protected without the aid of legislative enactment. State ex rel. City of Fulton v. Smith, 1946, 355 Mo. 27, 194 S.W.2d 302. If the provision lays down a sufficient rule, it speaks for the entire people and is self-executing. City of Shawnee v. Williamson, Okl.1959, 338 P.2d 355. The fact that the right granted by the provision may be supplemented by legislation, further protecting the right or making it available, does not of itself prevent the provision from being self-executing. People v. Carroll, 1958, 3 N.Y.2d 686, 171 N.Y.S.2d 812, 148 N.E.2d 875. Id. at 851. In Gray, the Court found self-executing a constitutional provision providing a formula to determine the number of judges in the judicial circuits, noting the provision laid down a sufficient rule by which the number of circuit judges which the people have dictated shall be furnished to them may be readily determined without enabling action of the legislature. Id. In reaching this conclusion, we emphasized: The will of the people is paramount in determining whether a constitutional provision is self-executing and the modern doctrine favors the presumption that constitutional provisions are intended to be self-operating. This is so because in the absence of such presumption the legislature would have the power to nullify the will of the people expressed in their constitution, the most sacrosanct of all expressions of the people. Id. The importance of ascertaining and abiding by the intent of the framers was emphasized, so that a provision must never be construed in such manner as to make it possible for the will of the people to be frustrated or denied. Id. at 852. Consistent with our precedent in Gray, we hold that amendment 7 is self-executing and its terms enforceable as of the date of its passage. We agree with the district courts that the amendment provides a sufficient rule by which patients can gain access to records of a health care provider's adverse medical incidents. For example, all key terms are defined within the amendment, including health care facility, health care provider, patient, adverse medical incident, and have access to any records. See art. X, § 25, Fla. Const. In addition, the definition provided for the term have access to any records indicates that it is to encompass current document production procedures as provided by general law. Id. Further, as noted above and as emphasized by both district courts, the amendment expressly declares that it is to be effective on passage, indicating that its effectiveness in overriding prior statutory law was not to be dependent upon the enactment of implementing legislation. The amendment's language makes evident that it was intended to effect an immediate change in the law governing access to medical records without the need for legislative action. While the hospitals contend that a number of relevant and unanswered questions remain regarding the reach of the amendment, we emphasized in Gray that simply because the right conferred by the amendment could be supplemented by legislation does not prevent the provision from being self-executing. 125 So.2d at 851.