HUNTER v. STATE

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 94-284.

Attorney(S)

Terrence E. Kehoe, Orlando, for petitioner. Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Anthony J. Golden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for respondent.

Judges

THOMPSON, Judge.

Acts

Evidence — Evidence Code — Definition of relevant evidence

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Michael Claude Hunter was involved in a two-car accident on August 12, 1993, resulting in injuries to him and the death of the other driver. Hunter was treated at Orlando Regional Medical Center (ORMC). He was never arrested or taken into custody related to the accident. On November 3, 1993, an assistant state attorney submitted a praecipe and subpoena duces tecum for an investigative subpoena under Florida Statutes section 27.04 to obtain Hunter’s blood alcohol level records from ORMC without giving Hunter or his attorney notice. The subpoena was issued by the court clerk. Hunter challenged the subpoena on the grounds that no notice was given, violating confidentiality statutes protecting patient medical records. The trial court initially quashed the subpoena due to lack of notice. The state then issued a second subpoena with proper notice, but Hunter moved to quash again. The trial court denied the motion but stayed the subpoena pending this appellate review.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the state attorney may compel production of a patient’s confidential hospital records via an investigative subpoena without providing prior notice to the patient.
Whether the state bears the burden to present evidence demonstrating the relevancy of the requested medical records to a pending criminal investigation before an investigative subpoena is issued.
The proper standard for judicial review of relevance in the context of subpoenas for confidential medical records.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

The subpoena was issued without prior notice to Hunter, violating Florida statutes protecting patient confidentiality.
The state failed to demonstrate the relevancy of the medical records to the criminal investigation.
Hunter asserted the statutory right to notice and a meaningful hearing before compelled disclosure of confidential medical records.

Respondent’s Arguments

The state argued it was not required to present evidence or probable cause to obtain the records via investigative subpoena.
The state claimed it operates as a "one man grand jury" and does not need to disclose investigative details or justify subpoenas in open court.
The state contended that requiring disclosure of investigatory details would impede the investigative function.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
State v. Wenger, 560 So.2d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)	Statutory privilege requires notice to patient when medical records are sought by subpoena.	Supported the requirement that the state must give notice to the patient or legal representative before issuing a subpoena for confidential medical records.
Newman v. Amente, 634 So.2d 305 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)	Relevancy of medical records to the case must be demonstrated.	Distinguished because in Newman the plaintiffs failed to show relevancy; here, the accident and death make relevancy obvious.
Big Sun Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. Prescott, 582 So.2d 756, 758-759 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)	When medical records are objected to, the court must determine relevancy before production.	Established that the state bears the burden to show relevancy once an objection is raised by the patient.
Doe v. State, 634 So.2d 613, 615 (Fla. 1994) (Shaw, J., dissenting)	State should be required to show relevance in open court to allow meaningful challenge.	Supported the notion that a patient should have a meaningful hearing on the relevancy of requested records.
Winfield v. Division of Pari-Mutual Wagering, 477 So.2d 544, 548 (Fla. 1985)	Clarified that relevancy is distinct from probable cause.	Used to explain that a finding of relevancy does not require probable cause.
Wyche v. State, 536 So.2d 272, 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), review denied 544 So.2d 201 (Fla. 1989)	Definition and application of relevancy in evidence law.	Supported the court’s explanation of relevancy standards applied to subpoenas for medical records.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory protections of patient confidentiality under Florida law, emphasizing that medical records are confidential and cannot be disclosed without proper notice and a court order. The initial subpoena was invalid because Hunter was not given notice as required by statutes §§ 395.3025(4)(d) and 455.241(2). The court rejected the state's argument that no justification or presentation of evidence is required to obtain medical records via investigative subpoena, holding that the state must bear the burden of demonstrating relevancy to a pending criminal investigation once the patient objects.

The court underscored the importance of an impartial judicial determination of relevancy before invading a patient's privacy, noting Florida’s constitutional right to privacy under Art. I, § 23. The court explained that relevancy here means evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact, a standard well-established in Florida law. The court clarified that a finding of relevancy is a lower threshold than probable cause and does not require a new rule but consistent application of existing evidentiary principles.

Because the state failed to present evidence or argument on relevancy at the hearing, the court emphasized the necessity of such a showing to protect patients’ rights and ensure meaningful hearings. The court’s analysis balanced the state's investigatory interests with the constitutional privacy rights of individuals.

Holding and Implications

The court DENIED the writ of certiorari and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

The holding affirms that a state attorney may compel disclosure of a patient's confidential medical records through an investigative subpoena only after giving proper notice to the patient. If the patient objects, the state must present evidence demonstrating the relevancy of the requested records to the criminal investigation before the subpoena is issued. This decision enforces procedural safeguards to protect patient privacy rights and requires judicial oversight to prevent unwarranted disclosure. The opinion does not establish new precedent but clarifies and reinforces existing statutory and constitutional protections regarding medical record confidentiality.

Show full summary ...

MICHAEL CLAUDE HUNTER, PETITIONER, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT.

THOMPSON, Judge.

Petitioner, Michael Claude Hunter, seeks a writ of certiorari to quash an order compelling production of confidential hospital patient records pursuant to a state attorney's investigative subpoena. We deny the petition because the petitioner was given notice of the hearing before the trial judge allowed the subpoena to issue and there was sufficient record evidence presented to show both a compelling state interest and that the medical records were relevant to a criminal investigation. We issue this opinion only to emphasize that the state has the obligation and the burden to present evidence to the trial judge to demonstrate that a patient's confidential hospital records are relevant to a criminal investigation before the issuance of an investigative subpoena.

Hunter was involved in a two car accident on 12 August 1993. He was injured and the other driver was killed. As a result of his injuries, Hunter was taken to the Orlando Regional Medical Center (ORMC) where he was treated. Hunter has never been arrested or taken into custody for any crime arising out of this accident. On 3 November 1993, an assistant state attorney investigating the accident submitted a praecipe and subpoena duces tecum for a state attorney's investigative subpoena pursuant to Florida Statutes section 27.04, to the clerk of the court. No notice of the issuance of the subpoena or its contents was given to Hunter or to his lawyer. The clerk subsequently issued the subpoena. The subpoena required ORMC to produce

Section 27.04, "Summoning and examining witnesses for state." reads:
The state attorney shall have summoned all witnesses required on behalf of the state; and he [or she] is allowed the process of his [or her] court to summon witnesses from throughout the state to appear before him [or her] in or out of term time at such convenient places in the state attorney's judicial circuit and at such convenient times as may be designated in the summons, to testify before him [or her] as to any violation of the criminal law upon which they may be interrogated, and he [or she] is empowered to administer oaths to all witnesses summoned to testify by the process of his [or her] court or who may voluntarily appear before him [or her] to testify as to any violation or violations of the criminal law.
§ 27.04, Fla. Stat. (1993).

any and all copies of records that depict the blood alcohol level of patient Michael Claude Hunter, white, male, DOB: 10-12-64, admitted on August 12, 1993.

In the first hearing, the state argued that they did not need to present any evidence or offer any testimony to demonstrate why the state needed the records requested pursuant to the investigative subpoena. The state argued

Getting back on track here to the root of the State Attorney investigative subpoena, it's the State's position that we don't have to . . . tell anybody what we're doing. We're operating as a one man grand jury here . . . we're conducting an investigation, we don't have to . . . tip our hand, tell anybody what we're doing. We're not required to show any kind of probable cause or reasonableness.

Obviously, the State Attorney investigative function would be seriously impeded if we have to go in open Court and describe to everybody exactly what we're doing, who we're seeking out and what we're seeking out.

The subpoena was quashed by the trial court on 20 December 1993 after Hunter proved that the subpoena was issued before he had received notice in violation of Florida Statutes sections 395.3025(4)(d) and 455.241(2), which provide that a patient's medical records are confidential and not subject to disclosure without the patient's consent unless a subpoena is issued by "a court of competent jurisdiction and [with] proper notice by the party seeking such records to the patient or his [or her] legal representative." §§ 395.3025(4)(d), 455.241(2), Fla. Stat. (1993); see also State v. Wenger, 560 So.2d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (holding that the statutory privilege requires the state to give a patient notice when his or her records are sought by subpoena). The state admits that no notice was given.

The state submitted a second praecipe for a subpoena to be issued and did give proper notice to Hunter. On 2 February 1994, the trial court held a hearing on Hunter's motion to quash. At this second hearing, the state adopted the argument they made at the previous hearing. The trial judge denied the motion to quash, but stayed the issuance of the subpoena until this court ruled upon the writ of certiorari.

Although it appears obvious that the state is seeking the patient records to determine if Hunter had been drinking alcohol on the day of the accident, the assistant state attorney never argued to the trial judge the relevancy of the patient records to the criminal investigation. In this case, the accident report, coupled with the fact that the other driver died as a result of this two car accident, makes the relevancy of the documents obvious. Cf. Newman v. Amente, 634 So.2d 305 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (plaintiffs did not show that requested patient records were relevant to their civil medical malpractice case). However, where a patient whose records are being sought properly raises an objection, it is the state's burden to present evidence and argument to show the nexus between the medical records sought and a pending criminal investigation. Big Sun Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. Prescott, 582 So.2d 756, 758-759 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (holding that once a statutory request for medical records is served and objected to, the court must determine whether the items requested are relevant). To rule otherwise, deprives the patient of a meaningful hearing. See Doe v. State, 634 So.2d 613, 615 (Fla. 1994) (Shaw, J., dissenting) (state should be required to show in open court that the information sought is relevant, then the objecting party has an opportunity to challenge the state's showing).

As an example, the state could seek to subpoena all the medical records of a patient from all of the patient's health care providers without there being a scintilla of evidence to suggest that any of the medical records are relevant to a pending criminal investigation. Some of the records might be relevant and some might not be relevant. Without the intervention of an impartial magistrate to determine relevancy, the notice of hearing to the patient is meaningless. The court is relegated to being a rubber stamp for the state. The court must act as a shield to protect the patient's right to privacy by determining whether medical records are relevant to a pending criminal investigation. This role of the court is extremely important because personal and potentially embarrassing information contained in the medical records may be disclosed. This invasion of a patient's privacy can only occur after the court finds a compelling state interest and that the information is relevant. Florida's constitution has a very strict prohibition against government intrusion into the private lives of its citizens and, by implication, their medical records. Art. I, § 23 Fla. Const.; Newman, 634 So.2d at 306-307.

Florida's Right to privacy provides:
Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into his [or her] private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.
Art. I, § 23, Fla. Const.

We hold that the state attorney may use an investigative subpoena to compel disclosure of a patient's medical records, but the patient must first be given notice before the subpoena is issued. If the patient objects, the state has the obligation and the burden to show the relevancy of the records requested; before the subpoena for the patient's medical records is allowed to issue. We do not rule that a finding of relevancy is equivalent to a finding of probable cause. Cf. Winfield v. Division of Pari-Mutual Wagering, 477 So.2d 544, 548 (Fla. 1985); Wyche v. State, 536 So.2d 272, 275 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 544 So.2d 201 (Fla. 1989). We do not suggest, nor is there a need for, a new rule to determine relevancy. Relevancy and relevant evidence have been determined by Florida courts to be "evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact." Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 90.401 (1992); see also John Henry Wigmore, Evidence § 2 (Peter Tiller ed., 3d ed. 1983); McCormick on Evidence § 185 (John William Strong ed., 3d ed. 1992).

We deny the writ and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

DAUKSCH and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.