38 Fla. L. Weekly D1685a
123 So. 3d 599
Insurance — Discovery — Conclusion and/or resulting impression from last twenty independent medical examination or compulsory medical examination reports prepared by insurer’s expert witness for insurer and insurer’s law firm — Redaction of patient record information and medical information does not sufficiently protect privacy rights of non-parties
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. BONNIE E. VERRO and GORDON VERRO, Respondents. 4th District. Case No. 4D13-1199. August 7, 2013. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Dwight L. Geiger, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562012CA001051. Counsel: Carri S. Leininger of Williams, Leininger & Cosby, P.A., North Palm Beach, for petitioner. Julia A. Farkas of Greenspoon Marder, P.A., Port St. Lucie, for respondents.
(Per Curiam.) State Farm seeks certiorari review of a discovery order that requires it to produce its expert witness’s Independent Medical Examination (IME) or Compulsory Medical Examination (CME) reports from unrelated cases. At issue is specific information, namely the physician’s “conclusion and/or resulting impression” from the last twenty (20) IME/CME reports prepared by the physician for State Farm and State Farm’s law firm. Based on our decision in Coopersmith v. Perrine, 91 So. 3d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), we grant the petition with respect to request numbers seven and eight. We recognize that the trial court provided that any patient record information and medical information be deleted. However, as explained in Coopersmith, redaction does not sufficiently protect the privacy rights of non-parties.
Petition for writ of certiorari granted in part. (Gross, Gerber and Forst, JJ., concur.)
