Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

April 2, 2021 by Jennifer Kennedy

Torts — Automobile accident — Discovery — Mental health records — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law by entering order requiring production of plaintiff’s mental health records without limitation or in camera inspection to ensure that only relevant information was disclosed connecting the mental health records either in substance or time to the claim at issue — Relief granted without prejudice for trial court to conduct in camera inspection to confirm that records are relevant and timely as to claim at issue

46 Fla. L. Weekly D653a

GREGORY ERN, Petitioner, v. JANICE LOU SPRINGER and PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents. 4th District. Case No. 4D20-2107. March 24, 2021. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Janet Croom, Judge; L.T. Case No. 31-2019-CA-000815-XXXX. Counsel: Joseph H. Graves and Christopher M. Rotunda of Graves Thomas Rotunda Injury Law Group, Vero Beach, for petitioner. Kansas R. Gooden of Boyd & Jenerette P.A., Miami, and Kevin D. Franz of Boyd & Jenerette P.A., Boca Raton, for respondent Janice Lou Springer.

(CONNER, J.) Petitioner, plaintiff below in an automobile negligence action, seeks certiorari review of an order requiring production of his mental health records. We grant the petition and quash the order.

The order permitted the production of the records without limitation or in camera inspection to ensure that only relevant information is disclosed connecting the mental health records either in substance or time to the claim at issue. This departs from the essential requirements of law. See Laforest v. Laforest, 284 So. 3d 1099, 1099-1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (citing Zarzaur v. Zarzaur, 213 So. 3d 1115, 1120 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)); Brown v. Montanez, 90 So. 3d 982, 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); McEnany v. Ryan, 44 So. 3d 245, 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). We grant relief without prejudice for the trial court to conduct an in camera inspection to confirm that the records are relevant and timely as to the claim at issue. See Zarzaur, 213 So. 3d at 1120 (“No documents may be disclosed to Husband or his counsel until after the trial court makes the required in-camera inspection to determine that every document disclosed is relevant, timely to the issue of Wife’s then-present fitness as a parent, and either not privileged or within a valid waiver of Wife’s privilege.”); McEnany, 44 So. 3d at 247 .

Petition granted, and order quashed with instructions. (MAY and ARTAU, JJ., concur.)* * *

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business losses — Business interruption — All-risk commercial policy providing coverage for “direct physical loss of or damage to” property or “direct physical loss or damage to” property does not insure against losses and expenses incurred by business as result of COVID-19 — Under Florida law there is no coverage because COVID-19 did not cause tangible alteration of the insured properties
  • Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business income losses — Trial court’s finding that policy covering loss of business income due to the suspension of operations caused by “direct physical loss or damage to property” required some tangible alteration to insured property comported with common meaning of its terms and context of policy as a whole — Policy did not cover economic losses insured suffered when it suspended its operations due to COVID-19 pandemic — No error in dismissing with prejudice insured’s petition for declaratory relief and damages
  • Torts — Negligent security — Sovereign immunity — Agency — Limited immunity — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Action brought against company which contracted with county to provide security services and its employee — Defendant company was entitled to limited sovereign immunity under 768.28(5) where county asserted a degree of control over defendant’s employees — Fact that defendant’s employee was working alone rather than side-by-side with county employees did not change level of control county had over defendant employee as evidenced by contract between county and defendant — Absolute immunity under section 768.28(9) applied to defendant employee, but did not apply to defendant company because it is a corporation — No abuse of discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint to add count for punitive damages where record is devoid of evidence that defendant employee engaged in intentional misconduct or gross negligence
  • Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Assignee’s action against insurer to recover payment for construction work performed on insured property following hurricane damage — Court adopts magistrate’s report and recommendation concluding that Section 627.7152(10), Florida Statutes, which repeals assignee’s standing to recover attorney’s fees under section 627.428, does not apply in instant case where both issuance of policy and assignment agreement predated effective date of statute — Whether relevant date for purposes of applying statute is date policy was issued or date assignment agreement was entered into need not be resolved under circumstances — Motion to strike plaintiff’s claims for attorney’s fees is denied
  • Torts — Dog bite — Negligence — Sheriffs — Sovereign immunity — Action alleging deputy sheriff was negligent in handling K-9 that bit plaintiff while attending a public event — Trial court erred in dismissing complaint against sheriff on ground that action was barred by sovereign immunity — Although a plaintiff may not rely on section 767.04 when suing a state agency for a dog bite because it is a strict liability statute, a plaintiff may bring such a suit in common-law negligence — Complaint adequately stated a cause of action for negligence under common law principles — Court rejects argument that plaintiff placed himself in zone of risk by approaching area occupied by deputy and police dog, and that because deputy did not move in proximity to plaintiff there was no zone of risk created by conduct of deputy — Deputy created the zone of risk by patrolling the venue with his K-9 — Whether the deputy was walking around or standing still was irrelevant — Because plaintiff was in a public location he had the right to walk where he wanted, including right up to the deputy, and, unless warned by the deputy to move away, plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that the dog would not bite him — Lawsuit was not barred by sovereign immunity where, although the decision to patrol the public venue with K-9s may have been a discretionary function, the act of patrolling the venue with K-9s was operational

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2022 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982