STATE v. WENGER

Factual and Procedural Background

The State of Florida appealed the suppression of a blood test report derived from a specimen taken from Adam Wenger following a motor vehicle accident that resulted in a fatality. The blood sample was drawn shortly after Wenger was admitted to a hospital for treatment of his injuries. The blood was drawn for medical treatment purposes, not specifically for determining blood alcohol content under Florida statutes. The state attorney obtained the blood test report via subpoena without notifying Wenger that his medical records were being sought. The trial court suppressed the blood test results, leading to this appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the state attorney's subpoena for Wenger's blood test report, obtained without providing notice to Wenger as required by Florida statute, violated the patient's statutory privilege and confidentiality protections.

Whether the subpoena powers granted under section 27.04, Florida Statutes (1987), override the confidentiality and notice requirements imposed on medical records by section 395.017, Florida Statutes (1987).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The state argued that the subpoena powers of its attorneys under section 27.04, Florida Statutes (1987), take precedence over the patient confidentiality protections outlined in section 395.017.

Appellee's Arguments

While not explicitly detailed, the appellee's position is implied in the court's reasoning that the state failed to provide the required notice to Wenger, thus violating the confidentiality protections and justifying suppression of the blood test results.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory framework governing the confidentiality of medical records under section 395.017, Florida Statutes (1987), which grants patients a privileged and confidential status for their records and prohibits disclosure without consent. An exception exists when records are sought by subpoena in civil or criminal actions, but only if proper notice is given to the patient or their legal representative. The state attorney obtained Wenger's blood test report through subpoena without providing the statutorily required notice. The court rejected the state's argument that subpoena powers under section 27.04 override the confidentiality provisions of section 395.017, emphasizing the clear legislative mandate for notice. Consequently, the court affirmed the suppression of the blood test results as they were obtained in violation of the statutory notice requirement protecting patient confidentiality.

Holding and Implications

AFFIRMED.

The court upheld the suppression of the blood test results due to the state's failure to provide required notice to the patient before subpoenaing medical records. This decision directly impacts the parties by excluding the blood test evidence from use against Wenger. The opinion does not establish new precedent beyond reinforcing the statutory notice requirement for subpoenas seeking medical records.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, v. ADAM G. WENGER, APPELLEE.

PETERSON, Judge.

The state appeals the suppression of a blood test report of a specimen taken from Adam Wenger. The specimen was taken shortly after he was brought to a hospital for treatment of injuries he received in a motor vehicle accident in which a person was killed. We affirm the order suppressing the blood test results.

Wenger's blood sample was drawn for medical treatment purposes rather than for determination of blood alcohol content pursuant to section 316.1932 or section 316.1933, Florida Statutes (1987). After hearing reports that Wenger had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath at the time of the accident, the state attorney obtained the blood test report pursuant to his subpoena powers under section 27.04, Florida Statutes (1987). Notice was not given to Wenger that the state was seeking his medical records from the hospital.

Section 395.017, Florida Statutes (1987), allows a patient's medical records to be obtained from a licensed facility such as a hospital. Subsection (3) of the statute provides that "[p]atient records shall have a privileged and confidential status and shall not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain." Paragraph (d) of subsection (3) provides that the patient's consent is not required "[i]n any civil or criminal action, unless otherwise prohibited by law, upon the issuance of a subpoena . . . and proper notice by the party seeking such records to the patient or his legal representative." Since the state attorney failed to provide the simple notice to Wenger that his blood test results were the subject of a subpoena duces tecum, the results were obtained contrary to the privileged and confidential status given to them by the legislature and were properly suppressed.

The state suggests that the subpoena powers of its attorneys under section 27.04, Florida Statutes (1987), are paramount to the privileged and confidential status bestowed upon patients' records pursuant to section 395.017. We cannot follow that suggestion in the presence of the clear language of section 395.017(3)(d) that requires notice to be given to the patient when his records are sought by subpoena.

AFFIRMED.

COBB and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.