ESTAPE v. Scherer

District Court of Appeal of Florida

ESTAPE v. Scherer

67 So. 3d 428, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12520, 2011 WL 3477052

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 10, 2011

Docket4D11-2133

StatusPublished

This text of 67 So. 3d 428 (ESTAPE v. Scherer) 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

ESTAPE v. Scherer, 67 So. 3d 428, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12520, 2011 WL 3477052 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

*429 PER CURIAM.

Petitioner brings this petition for writ of certiorari to review an order that denies his motion for protective order. We grant relief in part and remand for the trial court to further consider the relationship between petitioner and Dr. Seidman and whether petitioner was a “patient” as contemplated by Florida Statute section 90.503(l)(b), and whether he waived any such protection. The record furnished to this court reveals conflict between Dr. Seidman’s anticipated role with respect to “reunification” as represented to the court at the May 2011 hearings, and the signed “Informed Consent for Treatment.” Dr. Seidman’s deposition may proceed so long as he does not detail petitioner’s precise communications until the trial court revisits the nature of their relationship.

WARNER, TAYLOR and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

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

*429 PER CURIAM.

Petitioner brings this petition for writ of certiorari to review an order that denies his motion for protective order. We grant relief in part and remand for the trial court to further consider the relationship between petitioner and Dr. Seidman and whether petitioner was a “patient” as contemplated by Florida Statute section 90.503(l)(b), and whether he waived any such protection. The record furnished to this court reveals conflict between Dr. Seidman’s anticipated role with respect to “reunification” as represented to the court at the May 2011 hearings, and the signed “Informed Consent for Treatment.” Dr. Seidman’s deposition may proceed so long as he does not detail petitioner’s precise communications until the trial court revisits the nature of their relationship.

WARNER, TAYLOR and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 So. 3d 428, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12520, 2011 WL 3477052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estape-v-scherer-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack