Court Opinion

ID: 9556220
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-16 16:06:27.006522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:32.649422
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                                State of Florida

                         Opinion filed August 16, 2023.
        Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                             ________________

                               No. 3D23-862
                         Lower Tribunal No. 21-7044
                            ________________

                            Jack Ralph Hakim,
                                  Petitioner,

                                      vs.

                           Grace Ellen Hakim,
                                 Respondent.

     On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Abby Cynamon, Judge.

       Nancy A. Hass, P.A., and Nancy A. Hass (Fort Lauderdale), for
petitioner.

     Sandy T. Fox, P.A., and Sandy T. Fox, for respondent.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ.

     LOGUE, C.J.
      Jack Hakim, the husband in the underlying dissolution proceeding,

petitions for certiorari review of a trial court order granting the wife’s request

for production of the husband’s psychological and medical records. We deny

the petition.

      The husband and wife were married for over four decades and raised

four children together, when the husband petitioned for the dissolution of

their marriage. The wife counter-petitioned seeking alimony. During the

litigation, the wife filed a request that the husband produce the “medical,

psychological, health and mental health records relating to you [the husband]

for the past three (3) years.” Over the husband’s objection, the court granted

the wife’s request.

      For a writ of certiorari to issue, it is well established, “the petitioner must

demonstrate that the challenged non-final order (1) departs from the

essential requirements of law, (2) results in material injury for the remainder

of the case, and (3) such injury is incapable of correction on postjudgment

appeal.” R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Morales, 237 So. 3d 1093, 1095 (Fla.

3d DCA 2017) (quoting Sea Coast Fire, Inc. v. Triangle Fire, Inc., 170 So. 3d

804, 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)). Because of their private nature, an order

improperly compelling the production of medical records can constitute

irreparable harm because once the information is revealed it is impossible to

                                         2
make it entirely private again. Paylan v. Fitzgerald, 223 So. 3d 431, 434 (Fla.

2d DCA 2017) (“Orders that require disclosure of confidential medical

information meet the irreparable harm requirement for certiorari review

because once such information is improperly disclosed, the harm caused by

that disclosure cannot be undone.”).

      Here, however, the husband repeatedly and specifically placed his

mental and physical condition at issue by referring to his poor health when

seeking relief from the trial court. To give just a few examples, the husband

asserted he “earns nominal income” because he is “disabled”; he “has

severe and serious health issues”; he suffers from “heart issues, high blood

pressure issues, prostate issues” and “poor health, depression, high blood

pressure and other maladies.” He made these representations when asking

the trial court to award him exclusive use of a home, special conditions for

his deposition, distribution of funds, and other relief.

      Importantly, in several instances, these representations of poor health

were verified by the husband under penalties of perjury. In these

circumstances, the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements

of law in finding that the husband himself, not merely his attorney, put the

husband’s mental and medical condition in controversy. See § 61.08(3)(c),

Fla. Stat. (2023) (requiring a court considering a demand for alimony to

                                        3
consider “[t]he age, physical, mental, and emotional condition of each party,

including whether either party is physically or mentally disabled and the

resulting impact on either the obligee's ability to provide for his or her own

needs or the obligor's ability to pay alimony and whether such conditions are

expected to be temporary or permanent.”). Cf. Russenberger v.

Russenberger, 639 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1994).

     Denied.

                                      4