Silversmith v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Silversmith v. State

700 So. 2d 1255, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 12287, 1997 WL 683307

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 5, 1997

DocketNo. 97-2658

StatusPublished

This text of 700 So. 2d 1255 (Silversmith v. State) 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

Silversmith v. State, 700 So. 2d 1255, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 12287, 1997 WL 683307 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We grant this petition for writ of certiorari and quash an order directing Petitioner, a non-party psychiatrist-witness, to testify as to information he claims is privileged under section 455.2415, Florida Statutes (1995).

Before requiring Petitioner to answer questions which he contends will reveal the patient’s identity, the trial court should conduct an in camera hearing to consider which questions can be answered without revealing-the patient’s identity. To the extent all questions will reveal the patient’s identity, the state should be required to demonstrate its need for the information. See Amente v. Newman, 653 So.2d 1030, 1032 (Fla.1995); Colonial Med. Specialties of S. Fla., Inc. v. United Diagnostic Labs., Inc., 674 So.2d 923, 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). See also Voytish v. Ozycz, 695 So.2d 1301 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Community Psychiatric Ctrs. of Fla., Inc. v. Bevelacqua, 673 So.2d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

STONE, C.J., and FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We grant this petition for writ of certiorari and quash an order directing Petitioner, a non-party psychiatrist-witness, to testify as to information he claims is privileged under section 455.2415, Florida Statutes (1995).

Before requiring Petitioner to answer questions which he contends will reveal the patient’s identity, the trial court should conduct an in camera hearing to consider which questions can be answered without revealing-the patient’s identity. To the extent all questions will reveal the patient’s identity, the state should be required to demonstrate its need for the information. See Amente v. Newman, 653 So.2d 1030, 1032 (Fla.1995); Colonial Med. Specialties of S. Fla., Inc. v. United Diagnostic Labs., Inc., 674 So.2d 923, 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). See also Voytish v. Ozycz, 695 So.2d 1301 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Community Psychiatric Ctrs. of Fla., Inc. v. Bevelacqua, 673 So.2d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

STONE, C.J., and FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

700 So. 2d 1255, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 12287, 1997 WL 683307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silversmith-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack