Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, 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 Are Available to Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Blog
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Elisabeth K. Eubanks
  • Links
  • Contact Us

December 2, 2021 by Jennifer Kennedy

Torts — Premises liability — Discovery — Work product — Incident report — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law by requiring defendant to produce otherwise work-product protected incident report based on mistaken conclusion that portions of incident report contained plaintiff’s witness statement — Incident report did not qualify as a “witness statement” under rule 1.280

46 Fla. L. Weekly D2570a

WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., Petitioner, v. MIRIAM MERCEDES LOPEZ, Respondent. 3rd District. Case No. 3D21-1878. L.T. Case No. 20-25791. December 1, 2021. A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Pedro P. Echarte, Jr., Judge. Counsel: Kubicki Draper, P.A., and Barbara E. Fox, for petitioner. Jimenez Hart Mazzitelli Mordes, and Mark B. Hart, and Benjamin Mordes, for respondent.

(Before HENDON, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ.)

(BOKOR, J.) Winn-Dixie petitions for certiorari relief from an order of the trial court requiring production of portions of an incident report. After an in-camera inspection, the trial court concluded that two portions of the incident report (“Injury/Illness” and “Narrative”) contain Lopez’s statements and “must be produced.” Upon closer inspection, we conclude that the incident report contains no witness statement, as contemplated by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4). The trial court’s order departs from the essential requirements of law and impermissibly requires production of an otherwise work-product protected incident report. Certiorari review is appropriate because the harm of disclosure of work-product protected material cannot be remedied on plenary appeal. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995) (“Discovery of certain kinds of information ‘may reasonably cause material injury of an irreparable nature.’ This includes. . . material protected by privilege . . . .”) (internal citations omitted).

Winn-Dixie argues, as a preliminary matter, that Lopez made no “showing that the party seeking discovery has need of the materials in the preparation of the case and is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(4). Lopez correctly notes that a party need not show need and undue hardship to obtain its own statement. However, to qualify as a witness statement (or, in this case, a party’s witness statement) under Rule 1.280, the statement must be a “written statement signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the person making it, or a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording or transcription of it that is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement by the person making it and contemporaneously recorded.” Id.1

A cursory review of the incident report, including the sections of the report identified in the trial court’s order, reveal that Lopez was not the author of the identified sections. Despite the inference accepted by the trial court that some of the information in the sections identified came from Lopez, we cannot escape the fact that the report fails to identify Lopez as making any statements and, in any event, fails to authenticate such statements, as required by rule and our case law. A review of the document reveals neither a written statement signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the person making it, nor a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or otherwise recorded oral statement or transcription of such an oral statement. See Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Miami-Dade Cmty. Coll. v. Chao, 739 So. 2d 105, 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (“the incident report form has a space for the claimant to sign, but in this case plaintiff was not actually asked to sign it. Since there is no signature and no other evidence of adoption or approval by plaintiff, she is not entitled to production of the incident report under this provision of the rule”).2 Like in Chao, the report at issue here contains no indicia of adoption or approval of the purported witness statement. Accordingly, the identified portions cannot qualify as a party statement subject to production under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4).

Petition granted; order quashed.

__________________

1See also Fla. Stat. § 92.33 (“[a]ny person having taken, or having possession of any written statement or a copy of such statement, by any injured person with respect to any accident or with respect to any injury to person or property shall, at the request of the person who made such statement or his or her personal representative, furnish the person who made such statement or his or her personal representative a true and complete copy thereof”).

2Chao nonetheless denied the certiorari petition on other grounds, explaining that the respondent was entitled to the entire incident report, not because it contained respondent’s statement, but because respondent made a showing of need and undue hardship in obtaining information contained in the report. See Chao, 739 So. 2d at 107-08.* * *

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Homeowners — All-risk policy — Coverage — Cracking damage to home caused by blasting vibrations from nearby rock quarry — Exclusions — Earth or soil movement — Wear and tear, marking, deterioration, settling, shrinking, bulging, or expansion — Concurrent causes — Trial court did not err in denying insurer’s motion for directed verdict based on policy’s exclusion of coverage for earth sinking, rising, or shifting or soil movement resulting from blasting — Insurer’s position was based upon mischaracterization of testimony by insureds’ expert, who was steadfast in his opinion that none of the damage to home resulted from soil or earth movement, but was instead the result of shock waves from blasting that caused the house to shake — Based upon competing expert testimony, jury could have reasonably concluded that it was shock waves, not soil or earth movement, that caused damage — Jury instructions — Covered and excluded perils — Concurrent cause doctrine — Trial court did not err by instructing jury that land shock waves from blasting in combination with wear and tear, marring, deterioration, settling, shrinking, bulging, or expansion was not excluded under policy — Although policy’s earth movement exclusion contained an explicit anti-concurrent cause provision, this provision would have come into play only if jury had first determined that one of the causes of damage was earth movement — Judgment in favor of insureds affirmed
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Discovery — Work product — Claims files — Appeals — Certiorari — Trial court did not depart from essential requirements of the law by compelling insurer to produce documents from its claims and underwriting files — Documents in claims and underwriting files are not automatically work product — Insurer’s assertion of work-product privilege was overly broad, and insurer did not argue or prove that the requested documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation
  • Wrongful death — Medical malpractice — Vicarious liability — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Allegation that defendant, through its president, committed acts of intentional misconduct or gross negligence by assigning a nurse practitioner to provide after-hours care to a patient with highly complex problems that were beyond nurse practitioner’s permissible scope of practice — Trial court erred by granting plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint to assert claim for punitive damages — Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable basis for award of punitive damages based on intentional conduct where evidence was insufficient to show that defendant’s president either knew or otherwise intended for nurse practitioner to independently order medical treatment for patient outside the scope of nurse practitioner’s practice without consulting president — Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that defendant’s president condoned or ratified nurse practitioner’s independent treatment with actual knowledge of a high probability that doing so would result in additional harm or death to patient — Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable basis for award of punitive damages based on gross negligence where facts of case did not show that defendant, through its president or nurse practitioner, evinced a reckless or conscious disregard of or indifference to human life
  • Torts — Negligent hiring — Punitive damages — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in granting motion to amend complaint to add claim for punitive damages against employer of driver who crashed company car into plaintiff’s vehicle — Proffered evidence was not sufficient to establish reasonable basis for finding that defendant was grossly negligent when it allegedly hired employee without conducting adequate pre-employment screening, obtaining a driving and criminal history, and confirming that employee held valid driver’s license — Proffered evidence was either not directly related to allegation that employer was grossly negligent or sufficiently refuted by defendant
  • Torts — Negligent hiring — Punitive damages — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in granting motion to amend complaint to add claim for punitive damages against employer of driver who crashed company car into plaintiff’s vehicle — Proffered evidence was not sufficient to establish reasonable basis for finding that defendant was grossly negligent when it allegedly hired employee without conducting adequate pre-employment screening, obtaining a driving and criminal history, and confirming that employee held valid driver’s license — Proffered evidence was either not directly related to allegation that employer was grossly negligent or sufficiently refuted by defendant

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 © 2023 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982