Southern Baptist Hosp. of Fla., Inc. v. Charles — Oct. 2015 (Summary)

PATIENT SAFETY AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT

Southern Baptist Hosp. of Fla., Inc. v. Charles
Case No. 1D15-0109 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2015)

The Florida District Court of Appeal, First Circuit granted a hospital’s petition for certiorari review, quashed the discovery orders of a lower court compelling the production of a hospital’s occurrence reports, and held that the occurrence reports were protected as Patient Safety Work Product under the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act (“Patient Safety Act”).

The hospital develops “occurrence reports” of events that are not consistent with the routine operations of the hospital (or care of a patient) or that could result in an injury. These occurrence reports are collected and maintained under the hospital’s Patient Safety Evaluation System and submitted to a Patient Safety Organization, consistent with the process outlined in the Patient Safety Act.

In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff sought discovery of these reports pursuant to Amendment 7. Amendment 7 was a ballot initiative adopted in 2004 which amended the Florida Constitution and gives individuals “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.”

The lower court concluded that the occurrence reports, even though they existed in the protected space of the hospital’s Patient Safety Evaluation System, were not Patient Safety Work Product and, thus, not privileged under the Patient Safety Act because they were created or maintained pursuant to Florida statutory and regulatory requirements. The court of appeal disagreed, finding that the reports were entitled to protection under the Patient Safety Act because they met the statutory definition for Patient Safety Work Product. Specifically, the documents were entitled to protection as Patient Safety Work Product, regardless of whether state law or regulation required their creation and maintenance, because they were placed into the hospital’s Patient Safety Evaluation System, where they remained pending submission to a Patient Safety Organization. The court of appeal also held that Amendment 7 was expressly and impliedly preempted by the Patient Safety Act.