- Plaintiff
- Brandon Regional Hospital
- Represented By:
- Tolton, William (Ogden Sullivan & O'Conor P A )
- Defense
- Murray, Maria
- Represented By:
- Vaka , George (Law Office of George Alexander Vaka)
Case Overview: In this case the Respondent initiated a suit against the Petitioner, Brandon Regional Hospital, alleging that a physician on staff was not properly credited by the hospital to perform surgical procedures that the Respondent received at Brandon Regional Hospital. Respondent alleges that the procedures were negligently performed by the physician and resulted in her injuries. Respondent seeks to hold Petitioner responsible for her injuries. During discovery, Respondent moved to compel the physician to provide a list of privileges he was granted through the hospitals credentialing process, which included consideration by Brandons peer review credentials committee. Petitioner objected to this discovery and sought a protective order under sections 395.0191 and 766.101, Florida Statues (2001). The trial court denied the motion. The Petitioner challenged the ruling in the Second District which also denied relief. The Supreme Court granted review based on the Second Districts decision being in express and direct conflict with other district court decisions.
Proceedings Overview: In this proceeding, the Supreme Court of Florida decides whether the list sought by the Respondent is protected pursuant to Florida Statues 395.0191 and 766.101.
Outcome: The Court upholds the trial court and district court in holding that the information ordered disclosed is not protected from disclosure. However, the Supreme Court approves the result of the trial and district court, but not the reasoning.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.floridasupremecourt.org%2Fdecisions%2F2007%2Fsc05-1864.pdf
The Court upholds the trial court and district court in holding that the information ordered disclosed is not protected from disclosure. However, the Supreme Court approves the result of the trial and district court, but not the reasoning.