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

February 3, 2022 by Jennifer Kennedy

Wrongful death — Discovery — Mental health records — Appeals — Certiorari — Petition seeking review of order requiring disclosure of decedent’s mental health records related to his treatment — While records were relevant and discoverable because they relate to plaintiff’s alleged damages, the order departed from essential requirements of the law because it did not require in camera review of records to ensure only relevant records were produced

47 Fla. L. Weekly D343b

SHAWN LOWITZ, individually, and SHAWN LOWITZ, as Personal Representative of the Estate of David A. Lowitz, Deceased, Petitioner, v. SOUTH ALABAMA BRICK COMPANY, INC. d/b/a W.R. TAYLOR & COMPANY and CHRISTIAN SENN, Respondents. 1st District. Case No. 1D21-1555. February 2, 2022. Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Original Jurisdiction. Counsel: John W. Wesley, Wesley, McGrail & Wesley, Fort Walton Beach, for Petitioner. Jack R. Reiter and Robert C. Weill, GrayRobinson, P.A., Miami, and Peter S. Roumbos, Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Pensacola, for Respondents.

(B.L. THOMAS, J.) Petitioner brought a wrongful death action against Respondents for the death of David Lowitz. Petitioner’s alleged damages included loss of support and services, loss of companionship and protection, mental pain and anguish, and loss of prospective net accumulations of Mr. Lowitz’s estate. Respondents raised comparative fault as an affirmative defense. Respondents then filed a notice of production from non-parties and served a subpoena duces tecum ordering Mr. Lowitz’s mental health care provider to produce records related to his treatment of Mr. Lowitz. Petitioner objected and moved for a protective order. Respondents moved to strike the objection. The trial court granted Respondents’ motion allowing them to discover Mr. Lowitz’s mental health records. The order did not state that the trial court would conduct an in camera review of the records. Petitioner timely filed this petition and this court ordered Respondents to show cause.

“[C]ertiorari is a proper vehicle to review orders compelling the production of records that are protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege.” S.P. ex rel. R.P. v. Vecchio, 162 So. 3d 75, 79 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). If Petitioner shows a preliminary basis for relief, then Respondents bear the burden of showing why relief should not be granted. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.100(h).

A successful petition “must demonstrate that the contested order constitutes ‘(1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case[,] (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal.’ ” Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, 99 So. 3d 450, 454 (Fla. 2012) (quoting Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812, 822 (Fla. 2004)). This Court must first determine factors two and three: the “irreparable harm” prong. Craig-Myers v. Otis Elevator Co., 313 So. 3d 150, 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (citing CVS Caremark Corp. v. Latour, 109 So. 3d 1232, 1234 (Fla 1st DCA 2013)). The petition must satisfy the “irreparable harm” prong for this Court to have jurisdiction. Id.

The petition here satisfies the “irreparable harm” prong. An order requiring the disclosure of communications between a patient and a psychotherapist that are made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment constitutes irreparable harm. See Zarzaur v. Zarzaur, 213 So. 3d. 1115, 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (“Erroneous disclosure of medical records qualifies as irremediable harm.”). The trial court’s order departs from the essential requirements of law because it did not require an in camera review of the records to ensure only relevant records were produced. See id. at 1120.

Mr. Lowitz’s mental health records are relevant and discoverable because they relate to Petitioner’s alleged damages. Russell v. Stardust Cruisers, Inc., 690 So. 2d 743, 745 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (citing Appel v. Quilantang, 629 So. 2d 1004, 1005 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)); § 90.503(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (2020) (stating that “[t]here is no privilege . . . after the patient’s death, in any proceeding in which any party relies upon the condition as an element of the party’s claim or defense”) (emphasis added). Thus, the trial court must conduct an in camera review before Respondents may discover Mr. Lowitz’s mental health records “to ensure that only relevant records are produced . . . .” Whittington v. Whittington, No. 1D21-2117, 2021 WL 5915648, at *1 (Fla. 1st DCA Dec. 15, 2021) (citations omitted).

Accordingly, this Court GRANTS the petition, QUASHES the trial court’s order, and REMANDS the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion. (MAKAR and NORDBY, 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