Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

LYDIA D. PIERRE, BY AND THROUGH HER HUSBAND AND LEGAL GUARDIAN, ISSONEL PIERRE, THE PIERRE CHILDREN, AND ISSONEL PIERRE, INDIVIDUALLY, PETITIONERS, v. NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC., JAMES W. PORTER, M.D., AND HARARI, PORTER, BLUMENTHAL AND BROWN, M.D., P.A., D/B/A EMERGENCY MEDICAL SPECIALISTS OF SOUTH FLORIDA, RESPONDENTS.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Castillo-Plaza v. Green, 655 So.2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), which expressly and directly conflicts with the opinions in Kirkland v. Middleton, 639 So.2d 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA), review dismissed, 645 So.2d 453 (Fla. 1994), and Richter v. Bagala, 647 So.2d 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), review granted sub nom. Acosta v. Richter, 650 So.2d 989 (Fla. 1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

In the district court, this case constituted three consolidated cases: Castillo-Plaza v. Green, No. 94-1428; Pierre v. North Shore Medical Center, No. 94-1493; and Giron v. Noy, No. 94-1675. We dismissed Giron v. Noy after petitioners moved for a voluntary dismissal, see Giron v. Noy, 661 So.2d 824 (Fla. 1995), and neither party in Castillo-Plaza sought review in this Court. Consequently, our decision today applies only to Pierre v. North Shore Medical Center.

We have now addressed the issue presented in this case in Acosta v. Richter, No. 84, 413 (Fla. Jan. 18, 1995), and held that section 455.241(2), Florida Statutes (1993), creates a physician-patient privilege of confidentiality for the patient's medical information, and a limited exception to the privilege for disclosure by a defendant physician in a medical negligence action in order for the physician to defend herself. In the opinion we also disapproved of the decision under review in the instant case. Accordingly, because the decision under review is inconsistent with Acosta, we quash it and remand to the district court for proceedings consistent with our opinion in Acosta.

It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PIERRE v. NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER
(Mar 20, 1996)