Opinion
Case No. 5D21-1280
02-18-2022
Paul MCKNIGHT, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Michael H. Lambert, and Bryan G. Lambert, of Lambert Law, Daytona Beach, for Petitioner. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.
Michael H. Lambert, and Bryan G. Lambert, of Lambert Law, Daytona Beach, for Petitioner.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.
HARRIS, J.
Petitioner, Paul McKnight, seeks certiorari review of the trial court's order on the State's Notice of Intent to Subpoena Medical Records, arguing that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law when it allowed the subpoena to issue where the State failed to present evidence demonstrating the relevance of the medical evidence. We agree, grant the petition, and quash the order below.
The State charged Petitioner by a two-count information with DUI Causing Serious Bodily Injury and DUI Causing Property Damage. The State subsequently filed a Notice of Intent to Seek Medical Records pursuant to section 395.3025(4)(d), Florida Statutes (2019), and Petitioner filed a written objection to the State's notice. The trial court then held a hearing pursuant to Hunter v. State, 639 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
At the hearing, the State presented minimal argument as to why Petitioner's medical records could be related to his DUI charges. No evidence was submitted, and no witnesses testified. Nonetheless, the court entered an order authorizing issuance of the State's requested subpoena.
To obtain certiorari relief, a movant must first establish irreparable harm. Jackson v. State, 202 So. 3d 97, 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Orders granting the State's request for an investigative subpoena for medical records pursuant to section 395.3025 meet the irreparable harm requirement for certiorari review because patient medical records are recognized as private and protected by the Florida Constitution. See Leka v. State, 283 So. 3d 853, 856–57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) ; Hunter, 639 So. 2d at 72 ; see also Mullis v. State, 79 So. 3d 747, 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) ("Individuals enjoy a right of privacy in their medical records under article I. section 23, of the Florida Constitution." (citing State v. Johnson, 814 So. 2d 390, 393 (Fla. 2002) )). While "[t]he right to privacy is not absolute and will yield to compelling governmental interests," a violation of the constitutional right to privacy and/or a violation of the statute causes immediate harm which cannot be remedied on post-judgment appeal. See Leka, 283 So. 3d at 857 (quoting Johnson, 814 So. 2d at 393 ).
Petitioner must also demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of law. Petitioner argues that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law when it issued the order allowing the subpoena for his medical records to issue despite the State presenting only argument, and no evidence, to establish the relevancy of said records. We agree with Petitioner.
Section 395.3025(4)(d) outlines the procedure for obtaining medical records under subpoena:
Patient [hospital] records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the patient or his or her legal representative, but appropriate disclosure may be made without such consent ... [i]n any civil or criminal action, unless otherwise prohibited by law, upon the issuance of a subpoena from a court of competent jurisdiction and proper notice by the party seeking such records to the patient or his or her legal representative.
§ 395.3025(4)(d), Fla. Stat. (2019).
If the patient objects, a hearing must be held to determine if the records are relevant to a criminal investigation. Cerroni v. State, 823 So. 2d 150, 152 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). The State must present evidence and argument to show the nexus between the medical records sought and a pending criminal investigation. See Hunter, 639 So. 2d at 74 ; Cerroni, 823 So. 2d at 152 (holding that state has obligation and burden to demonstrate relevancy, via evidence, before subpoena for medical records may issue); Guardado v. State, 61 So. 3d 1210, 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) ("When the State seeks a subpoena for medical records, the court can rely on the State's argument and the accident report or probable cause affidavit to establish relevance.").
This Court and others have held that a trial court departs from the essential requirements of law when it allows disclosure of medical records absent a showing of the requisite nexus. See, e.g., Tyson v. State, 114 So. 3d 443, 445 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (granting certiorari relief where state failed to offer evidence that defendant's medical records "relate[d] to any element of the charged offense"); Gomillion v. State, 267 So. 3d 502, 509 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (holding trial court departed from essential requirements of law when it allowed State to issue subpoena where state presented no evidence making it reasonable to believe that defendant's toxicology records would turn up evidence that he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol).
Here, the State failed to present any evidence which demonstrated the relevance or nexus of Petitioner's medical records. Therefore, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law when it authorized the issuance of the subpoena. Because the disclosure of non-discoverable medical records would cause irreparable harm from which Petitioner has no adequate remedy on appeal, we grant the petition and quash the order below. However, we agree with the State that, because there is no indication that the prosecution acted in bad faith, the State should not be precluded from again seeking the Petitioner's medical records through a subpoena if it proffers evidence which demonstrates the relevance and nexus of the medical evidence to the pending prosecution below. See Cerroni, 823 So. 2d at 152.
PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.
COHEN and TRAVER, JJ., concur.