1 MICHAEL BALDWIN AND STEPHANIE BALDWIN, his wife, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA Petitioners, v. CASE NO. 1D SHANDS TEACHING HOSPITAL AND CLINICS, INC. and UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES a/k/a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, Respondents. / Opinion filed September 23, Petition for Writ of Certiorari -- original jurisdiction. Lincoln J. Connolly, of Rossman, Baumberger, Reboso, Spier & Connolly, P.A., Miami, for Petitioners. Susan L. Kelsey, of Kelsey Appellate Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Respondents. CORRECTED OPINION KAHN, J. We deny respondent Shands Teaching Hospital & Clinic, Inc. s (Shands) Motion for Rehearing and for Rehearing En Banc. We withdraw our original opinion dated July 20, 2010, and substitute this corrected opinion.
2 Petitioners Michael and Stephanie Baldwin, a husband and wife, seek certiorari review of the circuit court s December 2009 order denying their motion to compel a non-party, Shands, to produce all records of adverse medical incidents in its possession regarding Mr. Baldwin including a Shands risk management incident report and a Shands peer review form pursuant to article X, section 25(a) of the Florida Constitution (Amendment 7). The trial court denied petitioners supplemental motion to compel and/or motion for reconsideration. Because the requested documents are Shands records relating to an adverse medical incident, the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of Amendment 7. We grant the writ, quash the first paragraph of the order, and require Shands to produce all records of adverse medical incidents. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This litigation commenced with the Baldwins medical negligence claim against respondent University of Florida Board of Trustees, a/k/a University of Florida (UF). The complaint alleges UF physicians negligently intubated 48-year-old Mr. Baldwin for general anesthesia before a scheduled appendectomy at Shands, causing a perforation that injured his hypopharynx with severe damage to his larynx and throat. Count One alleged medical malpractice, Count Two alleged loss of consortium, and Count Three alleged unjust enrichment. Shands has conceded that after Mr. Baldwin s 2
3 admission to the hospital for an emergent appendectomy, and during the process of providing him with a necessary airway for the necessary anesthesia, a 6-mm perforation of his hypopharynx occurred. At the hearing below, counsel for UF stated, without an objection, that both Drs. Larkins and Good, the two physicians present at the intubation, had testified they did not know when the injury occurred. Section (1), Florida Statutes (2005), requires every licensed facility, as a part of its administrative functions, [to] establish an internal risk management program including, in subsection (1)(a), investigation and analysis of the frequency and causes of general categories and specific types of adverse incidents to patients. Petitioners moved to compel Shands to produce its risk management incident report and peer review record (which were identified in Shands privilege log) and any other records of adverse medical incidents involving Mr. Baldwin. Because Mr. Baldwin was under the effects of pre-anesthesia when the injury occurred and could not recall what happened, petitioners argued these records are the only accurate account of the injury, cannot be substituted, and thus are material to their medical negligence claim. Shands opposed the request on the ground that its own investigation concluded the incident did not involve negligence and was, therefore, not an adverse medical incident requiring disclosure of the records under Amendment 7. After a hearing, the trial court refused to require production of the two Shands documents. Petitioners now seek a writ of certiorari quashing the order and instructing Shands to produce the risk 3
4 management incident report and peer review record. The question is whether an entity subject to Amendment 7 may avoid the dictate of the amendment by determining, through its own investigation, that the records sought do not cover an adverse medical incident. II. ANALYSIS A. Amendment 7 The provision generally known as Amendment 7, adopted in 2004 by Florida s electorate, states: In addition to any other similar rights provided herein or by general law, patients have a right to have access to any records made or received in the course of business by a health care facility or provider relating to any adverse medical incident. Art. X, 25(a), Fla. Const. Amendment 7 thus provides an avenue for patients to get access to records of a health care provider s adverse medical incidents. See Fla. Hosp. Waterman, Inc. v. Buster, 984 So. 2d 478, 486 (Fla. 2008). [H]ealth care facility and health care provider have the meaning given in general law related to a patient s rights and responsibilities. Art. X, 25(c)(1), Fla. Const. Shands obviously is a health care facility. See, e.g., (3)(f) (stating health care facility means a facility licensed under chapter 395 ), (13) (defining hospital ), and (17) (stating licensed facility means a hospital ), Fla. Stat. (2005). 4
5 The primary dispute concerns whether Shands documents relate to an adverse medical incident for purposes of Amendment 7. The amendment defines the term as follows: The phrase adverse medical incident means medical negligence, intentional misconduct, and any other act, neglect, or default of a health care facility or health care provider that caused or could have caused injury to or death of a patient, including, but not limited to, those incidents that are required by state or federal law to be reported to any governmental agency or body, and incidents that are reported to or reviewed by any health care facility peer review, risk management, quality assurance, credentials, or similar committee, or any representative of any such committees. Art. X, 25(c)(3), Fla. Const. The parties agree that while at Shands, Mr. Baldwin suffered an injury. If this event constitutes an adverse medical incident, then article X, section 25(a) of the Florida Constitution entitles Mr. Baldwin, who is a patient as defined in section 25(c)(2), to have access to any records under section 25(c)(4) made or received in the course of the hospital s business relating to the incident. Construing together the provisions in Amendment 7, petitioners assert two independent grounds why the requested records must be produced. First, because Mr. Baldwin suffered a perforation of the throat during intubation by a UF anesthesiologist, the Baldwins characterize the injury caused by an act of a health care provider and, thus, an adverse medical incident under the language in the first part of the definition of adverse medical incident. Second, because the incident involving Mr. Baldwin was reported to or reviewed by Shands risk management and peer review entities, 5
6 the two requested records are, say the Baldwins, records of an adverse medical incident pursuant to the language in the second part of the definition. B. Certiorari Jurisdiction The extraordinary remedy of certiorari relief from a pretrial order requires that petitioners demonstrate the order 1) caused material injury that will remain through the rest of the proceedings and cannot be corrected on appeal from final judgment and 2) departed from the essential requirements of law. See Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1100 (Fla. 1987); Abbey v. Patrick, 16 So. 3d 1051, 1053 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Venus Labs., Inc. v. Katz, 573 So. 2d 993, 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (on reh g en banc). Error in the denial of a discovery motion is generally correctible on review of the final judgment; as a jurisdictional threshold, certiorari will respond only to material, irreparable harm continuing through the rest of the proceedings. Some denials of discovery requests, however, cause irreparable injury, in the absence of any practicable way 1) to determine post-judgment the effect of the evidence on the outcome of the trial and 2) to obtain the information via other reasonable means. See Travelers Indem. Co. v. Hill, 388 So. 2d 648, 650 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Because the material injury and irreparable effect elements are jurisdictional, we must analyze them first before considering the merits. See Lakeland Reg l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Allen, 944 So. 2d 541, 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So. 2d 646, 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). 6
7 In Hill, 388 So. 2d at 648, the petitioner sought certiorari review of the trial court s denial of a motion to appoint a commissioner to take a deposition in Ohio. Respondent Hill, the plaintiff, had filed a complaint alleging that petitioner/insurer failed to pay a theft loss under an insurance policy issued by petitioner to respondent. See id. at 649. The trial court denied the motion without giving a reason or showing good cause. The petitioner asserted a departure from the essential requirements of law based on the denial of its very substantial right, the importance of the witness testimony as an essential element of the defense, and the lack of an adequate remedy upon direct appeal from a final judgment. See id. at 650. Granting the writ and quashing the order, the district court stated: Id. It is difficult to understand how the denial of the right to take the testimony of an alleged material witness can be remedied on appeal since there would be no practical way to determine after judgment what the testimony would be or how it would affect the result. Certiorari is the proper remedy here. Relying upon Hill, petitioners argue the requested materials are clearly discoverable on two grounds under Amendment 7. First, they are material and go to the heart of the case, so that no other documents can be substituted for the ones in Shands custody. Second, no method would allow a determination post-judgment as to how the absence of these documents affected the outcome of the case. See also Queler v. Receivership of Cumberland Cas. & Sur. Co., 1 So. 3d 1140, 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 7
8 2009) (granting petition for writ of certiorari and quashing order granting motion to determine four subpoenas as null and void, where denial of discovery constituted irreparable harm not reviewable on direct appeal); Office of Att y Gen. v. Millennium Commc ns & Fulfillment, Inc., 800 So. 2d 255, 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (granting certiorari review and quashing protective order that prevented petitioner from obtaining discovery, where irreparable injury occurred due to inability to determine post-judgment what the testimony would be or how it would affect result). We also find significant, on the question of jurisdiction, that petitioners claim the denial of a constitutional right guaranteed to them under Amendment 7. [C]ertiorari is an appropriate remedy where constitutional rights are deprived or delayed during the pendency of a legal proceeding. Williams v. Spears, 719 So. 2d 1236, 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). In Williams, we granted certiorari review in a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute authorizing a court to order grandparent visitation if the parents marriage has been dissolved. We reasoned that if the statute ultimately were found unconstitutional, petitioners would have suffered irreparable injury from the continuing inquiry into their decision-making process concerning their child, in violation of their broadly construed privacy rights. See id. at 1238; see also Belair v. Drew, 770 So. 2d 1164, 1167 (Fla. 2000) (concluding that mother s claim that statute authorizing grandparent visitation rights unconstitutionally violated mother s privacy rights was subject to certiorari review, where trial court s order temporarily 8
9 granting grandmother visitation rights directly contravened mother s constitutional rights, and any later determination that grandmother s visitation request was not in child s best interest could not undue the privacy violation). Courts have also granted certiorari relief where the trial court refused to compel disclosure of relevant evidence, the party seeking the information had a compelling interest, and the information could not be obtained by alternative means. See, e.g., Carroll Contracting, Inc. v. Edwards, 528 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (issuing writ of certiorari and quashing order refusing to allow petitioner/defendant, a highway contractor, to subpoena non-confidential road construction site photographs taken by an off-duty newspaper reporter at the accident scene, where photos were necessary, relevant and possibly critical in a lawsuit to prove the actual condition of the roadway at time of the accident, and trial court departed from essential requirements of law). Because the petitioners have satisfied the material harm and irreparable effect requirements, we have jurisdiction. C. Merits Next, we consider whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law. Amendment 7 broadly sets out a patient s right of access to records made or received in the course of a hospital s business and relating to any adverse medical incident. See Article X, 25(a), Fla. Const. The Florida Supreme 9
10 Court has recognized that this popularly adopted amendment affects, or even abrogates, statutes that previously exempted records of investigations, proceedings, and records of peer review panels from discovery in civil or administrative actions. See Buster, 984 So. 2d at ; Advisory Op. to Att y Gen. re: Patients Right to Know About Adverse Med. Incidents, 880 So. 2d 617, (Fla. 2004). [O]ne of the primary purposes of the amendment is to provide a patient contemplating treatment by a medical provider access to that provider s past history of adverse medical incidents. Buster, 984 So. 2d at 489 n.6. [A]mendment 7 is self-executing and does not require legislative enactment. Id. at 492. A request for Amendment 7 materials differs significantly from an ordinary discovery request, the latter being subject to objections based on overbreadth, burdensomeness, or lack of relevance. See Columbia Hosp. Corp. of S. Broward v. Fain, 16 So. 3d 236, 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (on reh g) (acknowledging that challenges to discovery of Amendment 7 materials based on undue burdensomeness, overbreadth, and lack of relevance were not proper grounds); Morton Plant Hosp. Ass n, Inc. v. Shahbas, 960 So. 2d 820, (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Unlike the litigant engaging generally in discovery, the party seeking access to records pursuant to the amendment gains a foothold by satisfying the threshold showing of an adverse medical incident. See Buster, 984 So. 2d at 489 n.6; Fain, 16 So. 3d at 242; Shahbas, 960 So. 2d at
11 Respondents contend that petitioners failed to show the medical incident was adverse. In making this claim, however, respondents rely primarily on their own internal investigation conclusions that the care provided to Mr. Baldwin met the standard of care and did not involve an adverse medical incident. The Baldwins amended complaint alleged medical negligence by one or more of UF s physicians that caused injury to a Shands patient, Mr. Baldwin. Respondents admit the medical incident was subject to Shands internal peer review and risk management procedures, the written results of which were the documents sought, but not disclosed. The documents before us do not detail Shands policy or criteria for initiating and conducting internal reviews, other than that 1) an unusual outcome will generate an incident report, and 2) when in doubt, the matter should be reported. Cristina Palacio, Shands senior associate general counsel, stated in her affidavit that, pursuant to section , Florida Statutes (setting out guidelines for risk management, including incident reports), Shands has a standard procedure for reporting medical incidents. It receives thousands of incident reports annually, but not all are characterized by Shands as adverse. It is unclear from the documents before us exactly how Shands determines which incident reports are subject to peer review and risk management and which ones are not. Aside from statutory requirements, public policy favors a hospital s conducting an internal investigation of medical incidents that allegedly caused injury, as Shands 11
12 did after Mr. Baldwin s injury. Respondents have cited no legal authority, however, nor have we found any, that would allow the health care provider subject to Amendment 7 to act as the final arbiter in determining whether a medical incident, here being both unintended and harmful to the patient, was adverse for purposes of complying with or denying a request for production of medical records of the incident. Such ultimately is the court s decision upon a proper consideration of the nature of the records requested and the broad coverage of Amendment 7. Although the documents before us do not include petitioners presuit verified corroboration documents, which are a prerequisite for proceeding in a medical negligence action, see section (2), Florida Statutes (2005), petitioners amended complaint alleged they had complied with all conditions precedent to this lawsuit as provided in Chapter 766, Florida Statutes. Respondents do not assert otherwise. We see no reason not to conclude that a plaintiff s verified medical expert s opinion on the viability of the medical negligence claim is one method of making a threshold showing of an adverse medical incident for purposes of Amendment 7. Liberal access to records of past adverse medical incidents, now accorded to a prospective patient, see Buster, 984 So. 2d at 489 n.6, would, under Shands view, be denied a current or former patient like Mr. Baldwin, who has met the chapter 766 presuit notice requirements for a medical malpractice claim and has, without dispute, suffered a serious injury, upon the medical provider s sole determination. Such would 12
13 not comport with the intent of Amendment 7. Also supporting petitioners claim of access to the records, we note that each of the two UF anesthesiologists who treated Mr. Baldwin around the time of the incident believed the other was performing the nasal intubation when this injury occurred. Neither physician claimed to know when the perforation occurred. One would easily conclude, then, that Shands risk management incident report and peer review record will provide material, and previously unknown, information relating to the medical negligence claim. To the extent respondents seek to restrict the definition of an adverse medical incident to acts of negligence alone, we note Amendment 7 expressly includes medical negligence, intentional misconduct, and any other act, neglect, or default of a health care facility or health care provider that caused or could have caused injury to... a patient. Art. X, 25(c)(3), Fla. Const.; see W. Fla. Reg l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. See, 18 So. 3d 676, 690 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), rev. granted, Case No. SC (Fla. Mar. 29, 2010). Accordingly, [W]e interpret the phrase adverse medical incident as a specific incident involving a specific patient that caused or could have caused injury to or the death of that patient.... An adverse medical incident may be a negligent act or omission, as the definition indicates, but the act or omission must be connected with a patient and must be the cause or near-cause of an injury or death. Id., 18 So. 3d at 690. If Amendment 7 were intended to construe adverse medical incidents to mean 13
14 only medical negligence, as respondents suggest, then subsection (c)(3) would not include the additional language dealing with intentional misconduct and any other act, neglect, or default of a health care facility or health care provider that caused or could have caused injury. See id.; Shahbas, 960 So. 2d at 827 (denying certiorari relief to the extent trial court ordered discovery of medical records relating to adverse medical incidents, and granting writ to the extent order required discovery of privileged records that did not contain information about such medical incidents). The Baldwins have made a showing that the act or acts of a health care facility or provider caused or could have caused injury or death to a patient. They have also demonstrated the incident was reported to and reviewed under Shands peer review and risk management procedures. Accordingly, the trial court overlooked protected constitutional rights and departed from the essential requirements of law in denying the motion to compel production of the two records. The writ should issue. See Giacalone v. Helen Ellis Mem. Hosp. Found., Inc., 8 So. 3d 1232, (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (concluding that order denying petitioner/patient s motion to compel discovery of information, directly relevant to petitioner s defenses or reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, departed from essential requirements of law and caused material injury without an adequate remedy on direct appeal, such that certiorari relief was proper in action by respondent/hospital to recover unpaid charges); Ruiz v. Steiner, 599 So. 2d 196, (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (granting writ and quashing order 14
15 denying discovery from physicians regarding their meeting to discuss autopsy report on petitioner s husband, inasmuch as denying petitioner an opportunity to question physicians would cause irreparable injury that could not be remedied on direct appeal, absent any practical way to determine post-judgment what the physicians testimony would have been or how it would have affected the outcome). We GRANT the petition, QUASH that part of the order denying the motion to compel production of the two requested Shands records of the adverse medical incident, and REMAND with instructions to the trial court to order Shands to produce all records of adverse medical incidents. MARSTILLER and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR. 15
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT BARTOW HMA, LLC a/k/a BARTOW ) REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, ) ) Petitioner,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA NORTHBRIDGE APARTMENT HOMES/ CONCORD MANAGEMENT LIMITED, Petitioner, CASE NO.: 2006-CA-386-O WRIT NO.: 06-04 v. CONSOLIDATED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JOSE H. CORTES, M.D., Petitioner, v. EDNA P. WILLIAMS, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SHIRLEY DOELFEL, ET VIR. vs. Petitioners, CASE NO: 83,218 District Court of Appeal 5th District - No. 93-2808 FILED THOMAS P. TREVISANI, M.D., ET AL. Respondents. I RESPONDENTS',
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, v. Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA UNIVERSITY OF WEST FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, v. Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL, v. Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA CRIMINAL SPECIALIST INVESTIGATIONS, INC., v. Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO.: 2014-CV-000079-A-O Lower Case No.: 2012-SC-002127-O Appellant, v.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JAMES E. MAGEE, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D07-2050
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COUNTY, FLORIDA, vs. Plaintiff(s),, Defendant(s) / MOTION TO ABATE CASE NO. COME(S) NOW, Defendant(s),, by and through (its/their) undersigned counsel,
[J-119-2012] [MO Saylor, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT HERD CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, P.C., v. Appellee STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant No. 35 MAP 2012 Appeal
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION JANICE LEE, ) ) Case No. Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) BETHESDA HOSPITAL, INC. ) ) Defendant. ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT CRISTOBAL COLON, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. Case No.
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 01, 2014. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D14-1318 Lower Tribunal No. 14-5040 Moishe Mana, Petitioner,
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ALFREDO MEJIA, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D13-2248 ) CITIZENS
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 14, 2015 california legislature 2015 16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley February 24, 2015 An act to amend Sections 36 and 877 of, and
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2014 WE HELP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Florida non-profit corporation, Appellant, v. CIRAS, LLC, an Ohio limited liability
VII. JUDGMENT RULE 54. JUDGMENTS; COSTS (a) Definition; Form. Judgment as used in these rules includes a decree and any order from which an appeal lies. A judgment shall not contain a recital of pleadings
california legislature 2015 16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley February 24, 2015 An act to amend Sections 36 and 877 of, and to add Chapter 6 (commencing with
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA JACQUELINE ACOSTA, Appellant, v. CASE NO.: CVA1 06-87 Lower Court Case No.: 06-CC-6108 MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY OF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT MICHELLE BOWERS, Petitioner, v. Case No. 2D08-3251 STATE OF FLORIDA,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA DR. RAYMOND FAILER, v. Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D13-5603
[Cite as Wright v. Miami Valley Hosp., 2013-Ohio-4233.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOBBIE WRIGHT : : Appellate Case No. 25542 Plaintiff-Appellant : : Trial
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA QUENTIN SULLIVAN, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D06-4634
Case 0:12-cv-60597-JIC Document 108 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/13 12:33:23 Page 1 LISA KOWALSKI, a Florida resident, v. Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Michigan
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA EUGENE MCCOSKEY, v. Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D11-1035
REL: 12/09/2005 STATE FARM v. BROWN Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC02-2659 CYNTHIA CLEFF NORMAN, Petitioner, vs. TERRI LAMARRIA FARROW, Respondent. [June 24, 2004] WELLS, J. We have for review Norman v. Farrow, 832 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 97-C-0871 TIMOTHY CONERLY, ET AL. v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND CIRCUIT, PARISH OF OUACHITA KIMBALL, Justice * We granted
PART III Discovery CHAPTER 8 Overview of the Discovery Process Generally, discovery is conducted freely by the parties without court intervention. Disclosure can be obtained through depositions, interrogatories,
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF COLORADO INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION AND COLORADO ETHICS WATCH Plaintiff v.
Writ of Mandamus is Conditionally Granted; Opinion Filed December 3, 2013. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01457-CV IN RE SOUTHPAK CONTAINER CORPORATION AND CLEVELAND
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District STEVE AUSTIN, Appellant, v. JOHN SCHIRO, M.D., Respondent. WD78085 OPINION FILED: May 26, 2015 Appeal from the Circuit Court of Clinton County, Missouri
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION 2005 WI APP 99 Case No.: 2004AP1228 Complete Title of Case: IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: LINDA HALKO, PETITIONER, STATE OF WISCONSIN, APPELLANT, V. LAWRENCE M.
NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC04-110 AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROCEDURE [December 2, 2004] PER CURIAM. The Florida Bar s Workers Compensation Rules Committee has filed its
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No.: SC05-1864 BRANDON REGIONAL HOSPITAL, vs. Petitioner, MARIA MURRAY and DANIEL S. MURRAY, et. al. Respondents. ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL,
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT AG BEAUMONT 1, LLC; AG BEAUMONT 2, LLC; AG BEAUMONT 3, LLC; AG
Senate Bill No. 467 Passed the Senate September 10, 2013 Secretary of the Senate Passed the Assembly September 9, 2013 Chief Clerk of the Assembly This bill was received by the Governor this day of, 2013,
Ronald Matheny, Employee/Claimant, STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS SEBASTIAN/MELBOURNE DISTRICT OFFICE OJCC Case No. 14-029102RLD vs. Accident
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. JAMES BEEKMAN, Appellee. No. 4D13-4086 [August 19, 2015] Appeal and cross-appeal from
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-IA-00181-SCT VICKSBURG HEALTHCARE, LLC d/b/a RIVER REGION HEALTH SYSTEM v. CLARA DEES DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/22/2013 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ISADORE W. PATRICK, JR.
Friday 31st October, 2008. It is ordered that the Rules heretofore adopted and promulgated by this Court and now in effect be and they hereby are amended to become effective January 1, 2009. Amend Rules
Birth Trauma: Litigating Medical Malpractice Cases in Numerous States is currently litigating birth trauma cases throughout the country. The firm s attorneys are licensed to practice law in Texas, Louisiana
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA YVETTE HANNON, as personal representative of the Estate of Nathan Scott Hannon, and on behalf of all survivors, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES
CHAPTER 2011-233 Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 479 An act relating to medical malpractice; creating ss. 458.3175, 459.0066,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, Petitioner/Defendant, v. Case No.: SC09-1045 Lower Case Nos.:4D08-3090; 07-10734 CF10B STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent/Plaintiff. / PETITIONER S JURISDICTIONAL
Colorado s Civil Access Pilot Project and the Changing Landscape of Business Litigation On January 1, 2012, new rules approved by the Colorado Supreme Court entitled the Civil Access Pilot Project ( CAPP
Delaware UCCJEA 13 Del. Code 1901 et seq. 1901. Short title This chapter may be cited as the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. 1902. Definitions As used in this chapter: (1) "Abandoned"
2 California Evidence (5th), Discovery I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES A. [ 1] Purpose of Discovery. B. [ 2] Modern Discovery Procedures. C. [ 3] Relation to Pretrial Conference. D. Overview of California Discovery
GROSS, C.J. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2010 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellant, v. D.B.D., the father, Appellee. No. 4D09-4862 [August 25, 2010]
Title XLV TORTS Chapter 768 NEGLIGENCE View Entire Chapter 768.28 Waiver of sovereign immunity in tort actions; recovery limits; limitation on attorney fees; statute of limitations; exclusions; indemnification;
MICHAEL BARFIELD, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA Plaintiff, Case No.: IMMEDIATE HEARING v. REQUESTED PURSUANT TO Fla. Stat. 119.11 (2009) BERNADETTE DIPINO,
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA MEDICAL THERAPIES, LLC, f/k/a MEDICAL THERAPIES, INC., d/b/a ORLANDO PAIN CLINIC, as assignee of SONJA M. RICKS, CASE
Article 3. Family Law Arbitration Act. 50-41. Purpose; short title. (a) It is the policy of this State to allow, by agreement of all parties, the arbitration of all issues arising from a marital separation
00 STATE OF WYOMING 0LSO-0 HOUSE BILL NO. HB0 Medical malpractice-use of expert witnesses. Sponsored by: Representative(s) Gingery A BILL for AN ACT relating to medical malpractice actions; providing for
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. v. CASE NO.: 1D05-4610
CIVIL MOTION PANEL STATEMENT OF CONSENSUS Current As of November 2, 2004 (Authorities Updated 02/2007) The Civil Motions Panel of the Circuit Court is a voluntary group of judges who agree to take on the
HARDY MYERS Attorney General PETER D. SHEPHERD Deputy Attorney General DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GENERAL COUNSEL DIVISION John Shilts, Administrator Workers Compensation Division Labor & Industries Building
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER SC01-1713 BRITTANY AND MARQUIS WIGGINS, MINORS, Petitioners, 5 TH DCA CASE NO.: 5D00-2878 DISTRICT OF ORIGIN: FIFTH vs. LT CASE NO: PR97-1075 COUNTY OF ORIGIN:
2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U No. 1-14-1985 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C., Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2344 Memorandum and Order YOHN,
Office of the Comptroller v. Colonial Roofing Company, Inc. OATH Index No. 632/13, mem. dec. (Feb. 19, 2013) In prevailing wage case, contractor sought summary judgment dismissing petition due to delay
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY, ETC., Appellant,
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2014 JOYCE SMALL, Appellant, v. DEVON CONDOMINIUM B ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee. Nos. 4D10-2302, 4D10-5243, 4D11-247 and 4D11-4119
Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No. 09-03 IF THE VICTIM IN A CRIMINAL CASE THAT A COUNTY ATTORNEY IS PROSECUTING HAS RETAINED COUNSEL TO REPRESENT HIM IN A CIVIL CASE ARISING FROM THE SAME
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 13 September Term, 2005 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. WILLIAM M. LOGAN Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene JJ.
Case: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JAMES MEYER, v. Plaintiff, DEBT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS
Supreme Court Rule 201. General Discovery Provisions (a) Discovery Methods. Information is obtainable as provided in these rules through any of the following discovery methods: depositions upon oral examination
WICKER, SMITH, O HARA, MCCOY & FORD, P.A. SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2010 IN THIS ISSUE Summary Judgment on Health Care Quality Improvement Act in Florida State Court. A Process Server s Failure to Note the Time
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION In re: GRUBBS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Debtor. / CASE NO.: 03-08573-8W1 Chapter 11 NATIONAL EROSION CONTROL, INC. Plaintiff, vs. Adv.
SMALL CLAIMS RULES Rule 501. Scope and Purpose (a) How Known and Cited. These rules for the small claims division for the county court are additions to C.R.C.P. and shall be known and cited as the Colorado
[Cite as Stanley v. Community Hosp., 2011-Ohio-1290.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO GEORGE STANLEY, et al. : Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO. 2010 CA 53 v. : T.C. NO. 07CV213 COMMUNITY
AA-53816-5/reo/20330947 L.T. CASE NO. 5D06-3639 SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RANDALL B. WHITNEY, M.D., JAMES SCOTT PENDERGRAFT, IV, M.D., and ORLANDO WOMEN'S CENTER, INC., a Florida corporation, Petitioners,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ROSCOE FRANKLIN CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-3359 v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL ASSURANCE COMPANY O Neill, J. November 9, 2004 MEMORANDUM
GAVIN'S ACE HARDWARE, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION Plaintiff, -vs- Case No. 2:11-cv-162-FtM-36SPC FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ORDER
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: PATRICK J. DIETRICK THOMAS D. COLLIGNON MICHAEL B. KNIGHT Collignon & Dietrick, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: JOHN E. PIERCE Plainfield, Indiana
225 SOUTH ADAMS STREET SUITE 250 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301 850.222.7718 MAIN 850.222.8222 FAX M E M O R A N D U M TO: Kenney Shipley, Executive Director Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation
No. 67,195 CITY OF ORLANDO, Petitioner, v. ROLAND E. DESJARDINS, et ux., et al., Respondents. [September 11, 19861 ADKINS, J. In City of Orlando v. Desjardins, 469 So.2d 831 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), the district
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE, AT JACKSON FILED July 13, 1999 INTEGON INDEMNITY Shelby County Chancery Court CORPORATION, No. 108770-1 R.D. Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk Plaintiff/Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JAN COLVIN AND WADE COLVIN, v. Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE