Campbell v. Wendy's of South Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Campbell v. Wendy's of South Florida

495 So. 2d 890, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2145, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10074

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 13, 1986

DocketNo. BN-397

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 495 So. 2d 890 (Campbell v. Wendy's of South Florida) 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

Campbell v. Wendy's of South Florida, 495 So. 2d 890, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2145, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10074 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, Judge.

Claimant seeks review by petition for writ of certiorari of an order of the deputy commissioner requiring him to fur[891]*891nish an authorization for release of his medical records in South Carolina. These medical records can be obtained by the use of discovery procedures set forth in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and thus the employer/carrier may not obtain discovery through the method ordered by the deputy, even though this method is more expedient. Accordingly, we grant certiora-ri and quash the deputy’s order.

We agree with the claimant that this case is indistinguishable from Reinhardt v. Northside Motors, Inc., 479 So.2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). In that case, Reinhardt sought review by petition for writ of certio-rari of an order which directed her to furnish the respondents with an authorization for release of medical records located in California. There, as here, the respondents had not sought production of the records pursuant to rule 1.350 or 1.351, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. There, as here, the medical records were located in a state whose procedural rules authorized its courts to issue subpoenas to aid discovery arising from litigation in other states. Because the respondents failed to show the records could not be obtained by the use of discovery procedures already provided by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the trial court’s order constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law.

The result should not be different in this instance because this is a workers’ compensation proceeding. It is the expressed intent of rule 4.090(e), Florida Workers’ Compensation Rules of Procedure, that discovery should be accomplished “in the same manner” as provided in the civil rules. See Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Kostrubanic, 421 So.2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The discovery rules may not be dispensed with in workers’ compensation proceedings simply because of convenience or a costs/benefits analysis. Brevard Community College v. Barber, 488 So.2d 93, 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Kostrubanic, 421 So.2d at 53. As we noted in Kostrubanic, 421 So.2d at 53, if compliance with the discovery rules imposes too much hardship, then this point should properly be addressed by rule revision.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the deputy’s order is quashed.

SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

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

SMITH, Judge.

Claimant seeks review by petition for writ of certiorari of an order of the deputy commissioner requiring him to fur[891]*891nish an authorization for release of his medical records in South Carolina. These medical records can be obtained by the use of discovery procedures set forth in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and thus the employer/carrier may not obtain discovery through the method ordered by the deputy, even though this method is more expedient. Accordingly, we grant certiora-ri and quash the deputy’s order.

We agree with the claimant that this case is indistinguishable from Reinhardt v. Northside Motors, Inc., 479 So.2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). In that case, Reinhardt sought review by petition for writ of certio-rari of an order which directed her to furnish the respondents with an authorization for release of medical records located in California. There, as here, the respondents had not sought production of the records pursuant to rule 1.350 or 1.351, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. There, as here, the medical records were located in a state whose procedural rules authorized its courts to issue subpoenas to aid discovery arising from litigation in other states. Because the respondents failed to show the records could not be obtained by the use of discovery procedures already provided by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the trial court’s order constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law.

The result should not be different in this instance because this is a workers’ compensation proceeding. It is the expressed intent of rule 4.090(e), Florida Workers’ Compensation Rules of Procedure, that discovery should be accomplished “in the same manner” as provided in the civil rules. See Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Kostrubanic, 421 So.2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The discovery rules may not be dispensed with in workers’ compensation proceedings simply because of convenience or a costs/benefits analysis. Brevard Community College v. Barber, 488 So.2d 93, 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Kostrubanic, 421 So.2d at 53. As we noted in Kostrubanic, 421 So.2d at 53, if compliance with the discovery rules imposes too much hardship, then this point should properly be addressed by rule revision.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the deputy’s order is quashed.

SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

495 So. 2d 890, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2145, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10074, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-wendys-of-south-florida-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack