18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 502a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1806MIJA Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Medical records of nonparties — Court erred in requiring insurer to produce names, claim numbers and addresses for insureds and omnibus insureds who had peer reviews conducted by insurer’s expert where need for information was not sufficiently demonstrated
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. GLOBAL MEDICAL REHAB CENTER CORP. a/a/o JORGE MIJARES, Respondent. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 10-042 AP. L.T. Case No. 08-13501 SP 25. March 2, 2011. Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Original Jurisdiction. Counsel: Douglas H. Stein, Seipp & Flick, and Jonathan S. Brooks, Wilke & Brooks, P.A., for Petitioner. Maria E. Corredor, Law Offices of Maria E. Corredor, for Respondent.
(Before FARINA, BAGLEY, and DRESNICK, JJ.)
(PER CURIAM.) State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), Petitioner, seeks a writ of certiorari quashing a non-final order requiring it to produce the names, claim numbers, and last known addresses for its insureds or omnibus insureds who had peer reviews conducted by its expert physician Dr. Gene Jenkins, to Respondent Global Medical Center Corporation (“Global Medical”). Because disclosing identifying information of State Farm’s insureds or omnibus insureds examined by Dr. Jenkins without a sufficiently demonstrated proper need violates nonparty privacy rights, we hold that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law. Because this departure may result in harm that cannot be remedied on appeal, we grant the petition and quash the order under review.
On September 8, 2009, Global Medical issued a Subpoena Duces Tecum for Deposition, to Dr. Jenkins, requesting copies “of all examination [and peer review] reports, for at least (1) year, prepared by” him or on his behalf at the request of State Farm, State Farm’s counsel, and any insurer. State Farm subsequently objected and moved for a protective order, with regards to production of the examination reports and peer reviews, on the grounds that disclosure of nonparty information without notice to those nonparties would violate their privacy rights. The trial court heard the motion for protective order on November 12, 2009.
Global Medical agreed during the hearing on the motion that the reports were protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and Section 456.057, Florida Statutes (2009). However, Global Medical then argued that the names, addresses and claim numbers were not protected, and that it needed that information to be able to provide section 456.057 notices to all of the nonparties who were the subjects of Dr. Jenkins’ peer reviews. The trial court ruled, “I’m going to sustain the objection at this point with regards to the doctor providing th[ose] document[s].”
The trial court ordered State Farm to provide a list of “the names, claim numbers, and last known addresses for its insureds or omnibus insureds whom had peer reviews conducted by Dr. Gene Jenkins during the time period of April 2008 through April 2009.” The trial court signed a written order, sustaining the objection as it previously indicated, and ordering State Farm to provide the identifying information. State Farm brought its Petition for Writ of Certiorari thereafter.
The information required to be disclosed by the trial court’s order appears to exceed what is ordinarily permitted by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. See United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Friedman Chiropractic Ctr., 23 So. 3d 213, 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) [34 Fla. L. Weekly D2507a]. Moreover there is no proper showing for the need of this discovery that would override the privacy rights of the affected nonparties. National Sec. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Dunn, 705 So. 2d 605, 607-608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) [23 Fla. L. Weekly D27a] (quashing order granting discovery of other claims files in which bad faith had been asserted against insurer, as it improperly allowed accident victim access to nonparty medical records; order was issued in absence of showing need sufficient to overcome privacy rights of nonparties and without in camera inspection). By not following the proper procedure, the trial court violated the essential requirements of law, by ordering State Farm to produce such identifying information. See Sachs v. Innovative Healthcare, Inc., 799 So. 2d 355, 358 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) [26 Fla. L. Weekly D2633e] (“Thus, the trial court ignored the essential requirements of the law by entering an order which required the disclosure of the identifies of Immunecare patients.”).
We quash the discovery order January 8, 2010 compelling production of the names, claim numbers and addresses of State Farm’s insureds and omnibus insureds who had peer reviews with Dr. Jenkins, and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion, and the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.
