Summary
The Florida Supreme Court considers the scope of article X, section 25 of the Florida Constitution, commonly known as Amendment 7, which provides patients access to records relating to adverse medical incidents. The Court reviews whether external peer review reports prepared for a health care facility are discoverable and whether Amendment 7 eliminates restrictions beyond those previously imposed by statute. The decision arises from Amber Edwards’s medical-negligence action against Bartow Regional Medical Center and Dr. Larry D. Thomas.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Amendment 7 was limited to adverse-medical-incident records previously protected by statute.
- Whether an external peer-review committee qualifies as a 'similar committee' under article X, section 25(c)(3) of the Florida Constitution.
- Whether external peer-review reports concerning adverse medical incidents were made or received in the course of business under Amendment 7.
- Whether Amendment 7 preempts fact-work-product protection for adverse-medical-incident reports.
Holdings
- Amendment 7 eliminates all discovery restrictions on any records made or received in the course of business by a health care facility or provider relating to any adverse medical incident; its reach is not limited to records previously protected by statute.
- An external peer-review committee that reviews adverse medical incidents qualifies as a 'similar committee' under article X, section 25(c)(3), even if it is voluntary, external, or not required by statute.
- The external peer-review reports were made or received in the course of business and therefore fell within Amendment 7's disclosure requirement.
- To the extent the external peer-review reports contained fact work product, Amendment 7 made them discoverable.
Key quotations
“Therefore, as the plain language of the amendment mandates, we hold that Amendment 7 was aimed at eliminating all discovery restrictions on “any records . . . relating to any adverse medical incident.”” (at 293)
“Therefore, we hold that, based on the express language and the principles of constitutional analysis, the external peer review committee at issue in this case does qualify as a “similar committee” under Amendment 7.” (at 302)
“Therefore, we conclude that the reports at issue here are the type that are “made or received in the course of business by a health care facility or provider.”” (at 307)
“Therefore—here—to the extent that these reports contain any fact work product at all, we hold that Bartow’s external peer review reports are discoverable under Amendment 7’s broad reach.” (at 314)
Factual background
Amber Edwards underwent laparoscopic gallbladder surgery at Bartow Regional Medical Center performed by Dr. Larry Thomas. Thomas severed Edwards's common bile duct and failed to timely recognize the injury, requiring emergency corrective surgery at another hospital. Edwards sued Bartow and Thomas for medical negligence and requested records concerning adverse medical incidents, including external peer-review reports prepared by M.D. Review at Bartow's request when litigation appeared imminent.
Procedural history
In a medical-negligence action, Edwards served Bartow with a request for records concerning adverse medical incidents under article X, section 25 of the Florida Constitution, commonly known as Amendment 7. The trial court ordered production of internal and external peer-review materials after an in camera inspection. The Second District granted certiorari and quashed the order in part, concluding that the external reports were not made or received in the course of business, did not concern an adverse medical incident within Amendment 7, and were privileged. The Florida Supreme Court quashed the Second District's decision.
Remand instructions
The Supreme Court quashed the Second District's decision. The opinion does not state additional remand instructions.