Amisub (North Ridge Hospital), Inc. v. Kemper

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Amisub (North Ridge Hospital), Inc. v. Kemper

543 So. 2d 470, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1328, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3036

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 31, 1989

DocketNo. 89-0481

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 543 So. 2d 470 (Amisub (North Ridge Hospital), Inc. v. Kemper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amisub (North Ridge Hospital), Inc. v. Kemper, 543 So. 2d 470, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1328, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3036 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We deny this petition for writ of common law certiorari which seeks to set aside an order of the trial court compelling the defendant/petitioner to produce copies of records of other patients who underwent certain specified procedures on the same day as the plaintiff’s decedent. Ventimiglia v. Moffitt, 502 So.2d 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). The trial court included a provision in its order for the deletion of the names of the other patients before the records were released to counsel. As stated in Ventim-iglia, we believe the trial court acted within its discretion in permitting discovery of relevant material while protecting the confidentiality of the other patients. Id. at 15.

LETTS, GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We deny this petition for writ of common law certiorari which seeks to set aside an order of the trial court compelling the defendant/petitioner to produce copies of records of other patients who underwent certain specified procedures on the same day as the plaintiff’s decedent. Ventimiglia v. Moffitt, 502 So.2d 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). The trial court included a provision in its order for the deletion of the names of the other patients before the records were released to counsel. As stated in Ventim-iglia, we believe the trial court acted within its discretion in permitting discovery of relevant material while protecting the confidentiality of the other patients. Id. at 15.

LETTS, GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

543 So. 2d 470, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1328, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amisub-north-ridge-hospital-inc-v-kemper-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack