16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 98a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Subpoena duces tecum seeking production at trial of all payment records of physician for peer reviews performed during past three years is quashed where there exists no method to effectively protect privacy rights of nonparty patients involved, and there are less burdensome and less intrusive methods of obtaining financial information to be used to show bias of physician
KENDALL SOUTH MEDICAL CENTER, a/a/o Nelson Alfaro, Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Small Claims Division, *Civil Division. Case No. 03-5190-SP-25, Section No. 02. October 15, 2008. Lawrence D. King, Judge. Counsel: Christian Carrazana, Miami, for Plaintiff. Paula Ferris, Miami, and David J. Millheiser, Coral Gables, for Defendant.
ORDER QUASHING SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
THIS MATTER came before the Court on October 14, 2008 for review of Plaintiff’s written Response to Dr. Millheiser’s written Objection to Plaintiff’s subpoena duces tecum for trial. Further, the Court has reviewed the written filing of nonparty expert witness, Peter J. Millheiser, M.D. objecting to said subpoena duces tecum.1
The Court is otherwise apprised in the issues pertaining to this discovery dispute. Plaintiff seeks all payment records of Dr. Millheiser for peer reviews performed during the past three years pursuant to § 627.736(7), Fla. Stat. (2008). The subject subpoena compels the production of this financial information for the first time when Dr. Millheiser is scheduled to appear at trial in furtherance of rendering expert testimony.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Peter Millheiser, M.D.’s Objection to Production of said payment records is SUSTAINED. The subpoena duces tecum is hereby QUASHED. See Graham v. Dacheikh, 33 Fla. L. Weekly D2015 (Fla. 2d DCA August 20, 2008); § 456.057(7)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. (2008).
Specifically there exists no method to effectively protect the privacy rights of the individual patients involved pursuant to Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution and Chapter 45, Section 164.512, Code of Federal Regulation (HIPPA), especially with such short notice to the nonparty expert witness who was only recently served on the eve of trial.
Further, even assuming the payment records (income) of Dr. Millheiser are discoverable for impeachment purposes to show bias, there are arguably less burdensome or less intrusive methods to obtain such financial information. See generally Elkins v. Syken, 672 So.2d 517 (Fla. 1996).
Presuming the trial of this matter is not concluded during the October 2008 trial period, a request for this information may be appropriate pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.360 (2008), § 627.736(7)(a), Fla Stat. (2008), or Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.351 (2008) as to payment vendors upon sufficient good cause showing by Plaintiff necessitating the reasonable production of this financial information. Generally, such information is prohibited from discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(4)(A)(iii)(4) (2008).
__________________
1The Court finds that the relief sought in Plaintiff’s Response is not of an emergency nature, and does not require oral argument upon hearing.
