North Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Button

592 So. 2d 367, 1992 WL 7203
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 22, 1992
Docket91-3080
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 592 So. 2d 367 (North Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Button) 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
North Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Button, 592 So. 2d 367, 1992 WL 7203 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

592 So.2d 367 (1992)

NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT, d/b/a Broward General Medical Center, etc., et al., Petitioners,
v.
William L. BUTTON, etc., et al., Respondents.

No. 91-3080.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

January 22, 1992.

*368 Linda R. Spaulding and William R. Scherer of Conrad, Scherer & James, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner-North Broward Hosp. Dist.

George E. Bunnell of Bunnell and Woulfe, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioners-Aiden O'Rourke, M.D., Imad F. Tabry, M.D. and Imad F. Tabry, M.D., P.A.

Joel S. Perwin of Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg Eaton Meadow Olin & Perwin, P.A., Miami, for respondent-William L. Button.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners, defendants below in a medical malpractice action, seek review of the trial court's interlocutory orders compelling production of a hospital incident report and other materials claimed to be privileged under the work product doctrine.

We grant the writ, finding that work product materials, even under section 395.041(4), Florida Statutes (1991), are discoverable only upon a showing of need and undue hardship in obtaining the substantial equivalent. See Mount Sinai Medical Ctr. v. Schulte, 546 So.2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Bay Medical Ctr. v. Sapp, 535 So.2d 308, 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Humana of Florida, Inc., v. Evans, 519 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). We reject respondent's contention that the above-cited cases were incorrectly decided.

We also note that a showing of need and undue hardship is more than a bare assertion and must include specific explanations and reasons. See Procter & Gamble Co. v. Swilley, 462 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Speer v. Desrosiers, 361 So.2d 722 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Here, the unsworn assertions of plaintiff's counsel were insufficient to constitute a showing of need and undue hardship.

Accordingly, the trial court's orders of October 23, 1991, and October 31, 1991, are quashed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

HERSEY, WARNER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Firstservice Residential Fla., Inc. v. Rodriguez
261 So. 3d 674 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Zirkelbach Construction Inc. v. Rajan
93 So. 3d 1124 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Columbia Hospital Corp. of South Broward v. Fain
16 So. 3d 236 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Ashemimry v. Ba Nafa
847 So. 2d 603 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Horning-Keating v. State
777 So. 2d 438 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Snyder v. Value Rent-A-Car
736 So. 2d 780 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Estate of Schwartz v. HBA MANAGEMENT
673 So. 2d 116 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Inapro, Inc. v. Alex Hofrichter, P.A.
665 So. 2d 279 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
592 So. 2d 367, 1992 WL 7203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/north-broward-hosp-dist-v-button-fladistctapp-1992.