State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Sharp

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Sharp

647 So. 2d 981, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12172, 1994 WL 695624

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 14, 1994

DocketNo. 94-02453

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 647 So. 2d 981 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Sharp) 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

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Sharp, 647 So. 2d 981, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12172, 1994 WL 695624 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, invokes our cer-tiorari jurisdiction to review portions of a discovery order compelling production of certain documents. We have jurisdiction. See, e.g., Richardson v. Watson, 611 So.2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

We grant the writ in part and quash that aspect of the order requiring production of medical reports, with patient names deleted, prepared by Dr. Michael Slomka for the petitioner and a non-party (State Farm Fire and Casualty Company) concerning persons other than the respondent. In doing so, we specifically adopt the reasoning of Newman v. Amente, 634 So.2d 305 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), and Crandall v. Michaud, 603 So.2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). We deny the writ in all other respects because the petitioner has failed to furnish an adequate record demonstrating that the trial court deviated from the essential requirements of the law in ordering production’of other documents. See Allstate Van Lines Corp. v. Palmerio, 334 So.2d 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).

[982]*982Certiorari granted in part and denied in part.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, invokes our cer-tiorari jurisdiction to review portions of a discovery order compelling production of certain documents. We have jurisdiction. See, e.g., Richardson v. Watson, 611 So.2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

We grant the writ in part and quash that aspect of the order requiring production of medical reports, with patient names deleted, prepared by Dr. Michael Slomka for the petitioner and a non-party (State Farm Fire and Casualty Company) concerning persons other than the respondent. In doing so, we specifically adopt the reasoning of Newman v. Amente, 634 So.2d 305 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), and Crandall v. Michaud, 603 So.2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). We deny the writ in all other respects because the petitioner has failed to furnish an adequate record demonstrating that the trial court deviated from the essential requirements of the law in ordering production’of other documents. See Allstate Van Lines Corp. v. Palmerio, 334 So.2d 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).

[982]*982Certiorari granted in part and denied in part.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

647 So. 2d 981, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12172, 1994 WL 695624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-v-sharp-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack