Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

You're probably overthinking it. Call a lawyer.

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 381.028 - Full Text and Legal Analysis
Florida Statute 381.028 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
F.S. 381.028 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 381.028

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XXIX
PUBLIC HEALTH
Chapter 381
PUBLIC HEALTH: GENERAL PROVISIONS
View Entire Chapter
381.028 Adverse medical incidents.—
(1) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the “Patients’ Right-to-Know About Adverse Medical Incidents Act.”
(2) PURPOSE.—It is the purpose of this act to implement s. 25, Art. X of the State Constitution. The Legislature finds that this section of the State Constitution is intended to grant patient access to records of adverse medical incidents, which records were made or received in the course of business by a health care facility or provider, and not to repeal or otherwise modify existing laws governing the use of these records and the information contained therein. The Legislature further finds that all existing laws extending criminal and civil immunity to persons providing information to quality-of-care committees or organizations and all existing laws concerning the discoverability or admissibility into evidence of records of an adverse medical incident in any judicial or administrative proceeding remain in full force and effect.
(3) DEFINITIONS.—As used in s. 25, Art. X of the State Constitution and this act, the term:
(a) “Agency” means the Agency for Health Care Administration.
(b) “Adverse medical incident” means medical negligence, intentional misconduct, and any other act, neglect, or default of a health care facility or health care provider which caused or could have caused injury to or the death of a patient, including, but not limited to, those incidents that are required by state or federal law to be reported to any governmental agency or body, incidents that are reported to any governmental agency or body, and incidents that are reported to or reviewed by any health care facility peer review, risk management, quality assurance, credentials, or similar committee or any representative of any such committee.
(c) “Department” means the Department of Health.
(d) “Have access to any records” means, in addition to any other procedure for producing the records provided by general law, making the records available for inspection and copying upon formal or informal request by the patient or a representative of the patient, provided that current records that have been made publicly available by publication or on the Internet may be provided by reference to the location at which the records are publicly available.
(e) “Health care provider” means a physician licensed under chapter 458, chapter 459, or chapter 461.
(f) “Health care facility” means a facility licensed under chapter 395.
(g) “Identity” means any “individually identifiable health information” as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 or its implementing regulations.
(h) “Patient” means an individual who has sought, is seeking, is undergoing, or has undergone care or treatment in a health care facility or by a health care provider.
(i) “Privacy restrictions imposed by federal law” means the provisions relating to the disclosure of patient privacy information under federal law, including, but not limited to, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Pub. L. No. 104-191, and its implementing regulations, the Federal Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. s. 552(a), and its implementing regulations, and any other federal law, including, but not limited to, federal common law and decisional law, that would prohibit the disclosure of patient privacy information.
(j) “Records” means the final report of any adverse medical incident. Medical records that are not the final report of any adverse medical incident, including drafts or other nonfinal versions; notes; and any documents or portions thereof which constitute, contain, or reflect any attorney-client communications or any attorney-client work product may not be considered “records” for purposes of s. 25, Art. X of the State Constitution and this act.
(k) “Representative of the patient” means a parent of a minor patient, a court-appointed guardian for the patient, a health care surrogate, or a person holding a power of attorney or notarized consent appropriately executed by the patient granting permission to a health care facility or health care provider to disclose the patient’s health care information to that person. In the case of a deceased patient, the term also means the personal representative of the estate of the deceased patient; the deceased patient’s surviving spouse, surviving parent, or surviving adult child; the parent or guardian of a surviving minor child of the deceased patient; or the attorney for any such person.
(4) PATIENTS’ RIGHT OF ACCESS.—Patients have a right to have access to any records made or received in the course of business by a health care facility or health care provider relating to any adverse medical incident. In providing access to these records, the health care facility or health care provider may not disclose the identity of patients involved in the incidents and shall maintain any privacy restrictions imposed by federal law.
(5) APPLICABILITY.—Section 25, Art. X of the State Constitution applies to records created, incidents occurring, and actions pending on or after November 2, 2004. Section 25, Art. X of the State Constitution does not apply to records created, incidents occurring, or actions pending before November 2, 2004. A patient requesting records on or after November 2, 2008, shall be eligible to receive records created within 4 years before the date of the request.
(6) USE OF RECORDS.—
(a) This section does not repeal or otherwise alter any existing restrictions on the discoverability or admissibility of records relating to adverse medical incidents otherwise provided by law, including, but not limited to, those contained in ss. 395.0191, 395.0193, 395.0197, 766.101, and 766.1016, or repeal or otherwise alter any immunity provided to, or prohibition against compelling testimony by, persons providing information or participating in any peer review panel, medical review committee, hospital committee, or other hospital board otherwise provided by law, including, but not limited to, ss. 395.0191, 395.0193, 766.101, and 766.1016.
(b) Except as otherwise provided by act of the Legislature, records of adverse medical incidents, including any information contained therein, obtained under s. 25, Art. X of the State Constitution, are not discoverable or admissible into evidence and may not be used for any purpose, including impeachment, in any civil or administrative action against a health care facility or health care provider. This includes information relating to performance or quality improvement initiatives and information relating to the identity of reviewers, complainants, or any person providing information contained in or used in, or any person participating in the creation of the records of adverse medical incidents.
(7) PRODUCTION OF RECORDS.—
(a) Pursuant to s. 25, Art. X of the State Constitution, the adverse medical incident records to which a patient is granted access are those of the facility or provider of which he or she is a patient and which pertain to any adverse medical incident affecting the patient or any other patient which involves the same or substantially similar condition, treatment, or diagnosis as that of the patient requesting access.
(b)1. Using the process provided in s. 395.0197, the health care facility shall be responsible for identifying records as records of an adverse medical incident, as defined in s. 25, Art. X of the State Constitution.
2. Using the process provided in s. 458.351, the health care provider shall be responsible for identifying records as records of an adverse medical incident, as defined in s. 25, Art. X of the State Constitution, occurring in an office setting.
(c)1. Fees charged by a health care facility for copies of records requested by a patient under s. 25, Art. X of the State Constitution may not exceed the reasonable and actual cost of complying with the request, including a reasonable charge for the staff time necessary to search for records and prevent the disclosure of the identity of any patient involved in the adverse medical incident through redaction or other means as required by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 or its implementing regulations. The health care facility may require payment, in full or in part, before acting on the records request.
2. Fees charged by a health care provider for copies of records requested by a patient under s. 25, Art. X of the State Constitution may not exceed the amount established under s. 456.057(17), which may include a reasonable charge for the staff time necessary to prevent the disclosure of the identity of any patient involved in the adverse medical incident through redaction or other means as required by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 or its implementing regulations. The health care provider may require payment, in full or in part, before acting on the records request.
(d)1. Requests for production of adverse medical incident records shall be processed by the health care facility or health care provider in a timely manner, after having a reasonable opportunity to determine whether or not the requested record is a record subject to disclosure and to prevent the disclosure of the identity of any patient involved in the adverse medical incident through redaction or other means.
2. A request for production of records must be submitted in writing and must identify the patient requesting access to the records by name, address, and the last four digits of the patient’s social security number; describe the patient’s condition, treatment, or diagnosis; and provide the name of the health care providers whose records are being sought.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-265; s. 5, ch. 2006-271; s. 75, ch. 2007-5; s. 5, ch. 2013-108.

F.S. 381.028 on Google Scholar

F.S. 381.028 on CourtListener

Amendments to 381.028


Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 381.028

Total Results: 17  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Florida Hosp. Waterman, Inc. v. Buster, 984 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2008).

Cited 68 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2008 WL 596700

...holding amendment 7 to be self-executing and we affirm the First District's holdings that the amendment is self-executing and retroactive and its provisions apply to records existing prior to its passage. We also conclude that several subsections of section 381.028, Florida Statutes (2005), conflict with amendment 7 and are therefore unconstitutional, but we sever those provisions and hold that the remainder of the statute is valid....
...Provides that patients' identitie [sic] should not be disclosed. Id. After the passage of the amendment, the Legislature enacted chapter 2005-265, Laws of Florida, effective June 20, 2005, dealing with the same subject as amendment 7. [3] This is now codified at section 381.028 in the Florida Statutes....
...allowed for discovery, but disagreed that it could be applied to existing records. 932 So.2d at 356. The First District held in Notami Hospital that amendment 7 was self-executing, that it could be retroactively applied to existing records, and that section 381.028 was unconstitutional....
...The court certified conflict with Buster on the question of retroactivity. Id. The Fourth District subsequently cited and adopted the reasoning of Notami Hospital in North Broward Hospital District v. Kroll, 940 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), finding amendment 7 to be self-executing and retroactive as well as finding section 381.028 to be unconstitutional....
...The Kroll court likewise certified conflict with Buster. Id. at 1283. II. THIS APPEAL The primary areas of overlap between the two decisions on review involve whether amendment 7 is self-executing and *485 whether it can be applied retroactively, and whether the provisions of section 381.028, Florida Statutes (2005), are constitutional....
...cords, and furthermore that the medical providers' interest in the continuing confidentiality of these materials does not constitute a substantive right, we hold that amendment 7 provides access to existing histories of adverse medical incidents. C. Section 381.028, Florida Statutes (2005) Even though amendment 7 is self-executing and does not require legislative enactment, the Legislature is still free to give force and effect to its provisions so long as it does not run afoul of the rights granted in the constitution....
...However, as noted by the First District below, in its efforts to implement amendment 7, it appears the Legislature has substantially limited the right of access granted pursuant to the amendment. The First District detailed four conflicts between amendment 7 and section 381.028, finding that the statute "drastically limits or eliminates discovery of records the amendment expressly states are discoverable, and limits the `patients' qualified to access those records." Notami Hosp., 927 So.2d at 143....
...or diagnosis with that of the patient requesting access; (3) the statute limits production to only those records generated after November 2, 2004; and (4) the statute states that it will have no effect on existing privilege statutes. Id.; see also §§ 381.028(3)(j), (5)-(7)(a), *493 Fla....
...In addition to those limitations noted by the First District, we also note that the statute provides that patients can only access the records of the facility or provider of which they themselves are a patient, a restriction not contained within the amendment. § 381.028(7)(a), Fla....
...Furthermore, we observe that in addition to the limitation contained in subsection (6), the statute also provides that "all existing laws concerning the discoverability or admissibility into evidence of records of an adverse medical incident in any judicial or administrative proceeding remain in full force and effect." § 381.028(2), Fla. Stat. (2005). Because these restrictions and those identified by the district court conflict with the provisions of amendment 7, these statutory restrictions cannot stand. However, while we concur with the First District in finding that section 381.028 contains provisions that curtail rights granted by amendment 7, we do not agree that this requires the invalidation of the entire statute. Although section 381.028 does not contain a severability clause, this does not affect our ability to sever the unconstitutional portions of the statute....
...without the other; and (3) whether an act complete in itself remains after the invalid provisions are stricken. See Moreau v. Lewis, 648 So.2d 124, 128 (Fla. 1995) (quoting Presbyterian Homes v. Wood, 297 So.2d 556, 559 (Fla.1974)). We conclude that section 381.028 easily satisfies this analysis. According to its "Purpose" section, the purpose of section 381.028 is "to implement s. 25, Art. X of the State Constitution." See § 381.028(2), Fla....
...mendment 7. For example, the statute provides definitions of important terms, dictates that patient privacy restrictions be upheld, and identifies pursuant to other statutes the party responsible for identifying records of adverse medical incidents. § 381.028(3)(4), 7(b), Fla. Stat. (2005). Section 381.028 also provides that fees for the production of records cannot exceed the reasonable cost of complying with the request and that requests for production must be processed in a timely manner. § 381.028(7)(c), Fla....
...Clearly the unconstitutional provisions are separable from the remainder of the statute and it remains complete in itself without the unconstitutional sections. We conclude that these unconstitutional subsections may be eliminated without the need to strike down section 381.028, Florida Statutes *494 (2005), in its entirety. The offending subsections can be separated without any adverse effect on its remaining portions, leaving intact a workable and helpful statute. Accordingly, we find that the legislative purpose of section 381.028 can be accomplished if the unconstitutional sections discussed above are severed....
...We also hold that the right of access granted pursuant to the amendment is retroactive and therefore applies to adverse medical incident records existing prior to its effective date of November 2, 2004. Finally, although we find several subsections of 381.028 to unconstitutionally impinge upon the rights granted pursuant to amendment 7, we sever those unconstitutional sections from the statute and allow the remainder to stand....
...se, nor the summary explicitly addressed retroactivity. The Legislature reviewed the constitutional provision, including the lack of any specific provisions or words addressing retroactivity, and determined that the revision was not retroactive. See § 381.028(2), Fla....
...bility" section. That section was not officially added to the Florida Constitution. See art. X, § 25, Fla. Const.; Patients' Right to Know, 880 So.2d at 619. [3] This stated purpose of this statute is to implement amendment 7. The statute provides: 381.028....
...ng access to the records by name, address, and the last four digits of the patient's social security number; describe the patient's condition, treatment, or diagnosis; and provide the name of the health care providers whose records are being sought. § 381.028, Fla....
Copy

West Florida Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. See, 79 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2012).

Cited 26 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 22, 2012 Fla. LEXIS 55, 2012 WL 87282

implementing legislation for Amendment 7 — i.e., section 381.028, Florida Statutes (2006) — stated that Amendment
Copy

Notami Hosp. of Florida, Inc. v. Bowen, 927 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

Cited 15 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 1041542

...Lincoln Connolly of Rossman, Baumberger, Reboso & Spier, P.A., Miami, & Philip Burlington, of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, as Amici Curiae for Respondents. HAWKES, J. The trial court ruled Amendment 7, codified as article X, section 25, of the Florida Constitution, is self-executing, and section 381.028, Florida Statutes (2005), enacted to implement article X, section 25, is unconstitutional....
...7. These motions broadened the previous request to "any records made or received in the course of business by [the Hospital] relating to any adverse medical incident involving Dr. Pendrak." Following a motion hearing, the trial court concluded: (1) section 381.028 restricted rights granted under the Florida Constitution and, consequently, was unconstitutional; (2) Amendment 7 is not unconstitutionally retrospective because there is no vested right in maintaining confidentiality of adverse medical incidents; and (3) Amendment 7 is self-executing and prospective in operation, but retrospective as to extant records. We agree with each conclusion, and discuss them in turn. Section 381.028, Florida Statutes Restricts Constitutional Rights State constitutions are limitations upon the power of state legislatures....
...with provisions of the Constitution the statute must give way."); State ex rel. Curley v. McGeachy, 149 Fla. 633, 642, 6 So.2d 823, 827 (Fla.1942) (en banc) (noting provisions of Constitution will prevail over statutes where there is conflict). *143 Section 381.028, Florida Statutes, purports to implement Amendment 7....
...However, a comparison of the plain language of the "implementing" statute and article X, section 25, reveals the statute drastically limits or eliminates discovery of records the amendment expressly states are discoverable, and limits the "patients" qualified to access those records. Four examples illustrate how section 381.028 restricts constitutional rights....
...limited to " records resulting from "incidents that are reported to or reviewed by any health care facility peer review, risk management, quality assurance, credentials, or similar committee, or any representative of any such committee." Conversely, section 381.028(3)(j), Florida Statutes, limits records produced to only a "final report." Second, article X, section 25(c)(2), provides that patients, actual, prospective, or previous, are entitled to those records. Section 381.028(7), Florida Statutes, limits disclosure to only the final report relating to the same or a substantially similar condition, treatment or diagnosis with that of the patient requesting record access. Third, article X, section 25(a), contains no limitation on the time frame within which the records were generated, while section 381.028(5), Florida Statutes, limits production to only those records generated after November 2, 2004. Fourth, section 381.028(6), provides that Amendment 7 will have no effect on existing privilege statutes....
...ve the records requested. Because the plain language of the amendment expresses a clear intent that it be applied to include records created prior to its effective date, doing so is not an unconstitutional retroactive application. Conclusion Because section 381.028, restricts express constitutional rights, it must fall....
Copy

Florida Hosp. Waterman, Inc. v. Buster, 932 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Cited 10 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 566084

...The people have made their choice, and it is not for us to question the wisdom of it. We note, parenthetically, that Amendment 7 does not profess to affect the work-product and attorney-client privileges, and the parties do not contend otherwise. *353 Effective June 20, 2005, the Legislature enacted section 381.028, Florida Statutes, to implement the provisions of Amendment 7....
...State ex rel. Christian, 310 So.2d 289, 293 (Fla.1975) ("A statute enacted by the Legislature may not constrict a right granted under the ultimate authority of the Constitution."). While we express no opinion regarding the processes established in section 381.028 to secure the requested information pursuant to Amendment 7, we do reject the interpretation of that amendment by the Legislature....
...Moreover, what the people provide in their constitution, the Legislature and the courts may not take away through subsequent legislation or decision. Therefore, we are not much impressed or persuaded by the legislative interpretation of Amendment 7 pronounced in section 381.028....
Copy

Columbia Hosp. Corp. of South Broward v. Fain, 16 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

Cited 7 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 11600, 2009 WL 2516917

...upreme Court held that the legislature's attempts to limit requests under the amendment to facilities or providers where the party seeking the information was physically a "patient" receiving treatment were unconstitutional. Id. at 493 (finding that section 381.028(7)(a), and other portions of this "implementing" statute were inconsistent with the language of the amendment and unconstitutional)....
...Wellner did not hold that Amendment 7 materials can be discovered only outside the context of pending litigation. We decline to impose an unworkable distinction between Amendment 7 requests made in a pending case and those made outside the context of litigation. Procedural Protections under Section 381.028 Columbia argues that the trial court failed to consider or rule on its claims of procedural protections under section 381.028, Florida Statutes. The statute provides: "The health care facility may require payment, in full or in part, before acting on the records request." § 381.028(7)(c)1, Fla....
...with the discovery before production, we need not decide this issue. Columbia has not been required to produce the materials prior to payment. No departure from the essential requirements of law is established. Columbia also argues that language in section 381.028(7)(b)1 limits the types of records that it may be required to produce and provides the sole method through which the hospital must identify records of adverse medical incidents....
Copy

Florida Eye Clinic, P.A. v. Gmach, 14 So. 3d 1044 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 6557, 2009 WL 1490838

...In Bowen, the First District Court agreed with this court that amendment 7 was self-executing; however, it also concluded that amendment 7 was retroactive, which placed it in direct conflict with this court. The court in Bowen further concluded that the legislation implementing amendment 7, section 381.028, Florida Statutes, was unconstitutional in its entirety....
...e and therefore applies to adverse medical incident records existing prior to its effective date of November 2, 2004."). Notably, the supreme court also disagreed with the First District Court's conclusion in Bowen that the implementing legislation, section 381.028, was unconstitutional in its entirety....
Copy

Avante Villa at Jacksonville v. Breidert, 958 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 1593242

..."related to a patient's rights and responsibilities" can be reasonably interpreted as adopting the definitions used in the Florida Patient's Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. *1034 Further, in 2005, the Florida Legislature codified Amendment 7 in section 381.028(3), Florida Statutes, and defined "health care facility" and "health care provider" as follows: (e) "Health care provider" means a physician licensed under chapter 458, chapter 459, or chapter 461. (f) "Health care facility" means a facility licensed under chapter 395. Thus, Amendment 7's statutory codification excludes nursing homes from compelled discovery of adverse medical incidents. While portions of section 381.028 have been previously declared in conflict with Amendment 7, see Notami Hospital of Florida, Inc. v. Bowen, 927 So.2d 139, 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (finding section 381.028, Florida Statutes, unconstitutional because it "drastically limits or eliminates discovery of records the amendment expressly states are discoverable, and limits the `patients' qualified to access those records."); Florida Hospital Waterman, Inc....
...ation should be given deference. Greater Loretta Improvement Ass'n v. State ex rel. Boone, 234 So.2d 665 (Fla.1970). [3] Because no conflict exists, the trial court was required to apply the law of Florida's Constitution as codified and clarified in section 381.028, Florida Statutes, which excludes nursing homes and skilled nursing facilities....
Copy

West Florida Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. See, 18 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14400, 2009 WL 3047396

...ds of adverse medical incidents ordered to be produced pursuant to Article X, section 25 of the Florida Constitution; (2) in ordering Petitioner to produce records beyond the scope of Respondents' requests; (3) in denying Petitioner the right, under section 381.028(7)(b)1, Florida Statutes (2006), to use the process identified in section 395.0197, Florida Statutes (2006), to decide which documents are considered records of adverse medical incidents; (4) in denying Petitioner the right to require prepayment of the costs of production, as authorized by section 381.028(7)(c)1; (5) *681 in rejecting Petitioner's argument that Amendment 7 is preempted by the federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986; (6) in rejecting Petitioner's argument that Amendment 7 violates the Contract Clause of the...
...red to file one due to the burdensomeness [1] of Respondents' requests, and asked the trial court to waive any requirement to file a privilege log if it determined that such a requirement applied. Additionally, Petitioner argued that, under sections 381.028(7)(b)1 and 395.0197, Florida Statutes (2006), it was not required to produce any records other than those of "incidents in Code 15 reports and the annual reports" that are required under subsections (5) and (7) of section 395.1097. Finally, Petitioner claimed that if the trial court ordered it to *682 provide any of the requested records, Respondents were required to pay the costs of production in advance, pursuant to section 381.028(7)(c)1....
...f Mary Jane Benson, M.D. and George C. Rees, M.D. for two (2) years preceding the date of the first surgery performed on Mrs. See by the doctors in this case." The order is silent as to Petitioner's work-product objection and its arguments regarding section 381.028(7)(b)1 &(c)1....
...issues. Nothing in the trial court's order prohibits Petitioner from filing a privilege log now and raising specific privilege objections to specific documents. Thus, we find no departure from the essential requirements of the law as to this issue. Section 381.028(7)(b)1, Florida Statutes (2006) The next issue we address is whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in declining to ratify Petitioner's interpretation of section 381.028(7)(b)1 as limiting the records it must produce under Amendment 7 to the "Code 15" reports and annual reports required by subsections (5) and (7) of section 395.1097....
...sister court noted in Fain, Amendment 7 expressly provides that it is "not limited to" incidents that already must be reported under law. 16 So.3d at 241. The trial court's order used Amendment 7 as the basis for ordering production of documents. If section 381.028(7)(b)1 requires *684 less of hospitals, as Petitioner suggests, then it conflicts with Amendment 7....
...endment." Id. (citing Fla. Hosp. Waterman, Inc. v. Buster, 984 So.2d 478 (Fla.2008)). The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of the law in declining to limit the scope of Amendment 7 by adopting Petitioner's interpretation of section 381.028(7)(b)1....
Copy

Cedars Healthcare Grp., Ltd. v. Ampuero-Martinez, 88 So. 3d 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2011 WL 4374270, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 14940

...We grant the petition solely on the ground that the request to produce asks for records of adverse medical incidents involving patients other than the plaintiff but does not limit the production of those records to the same or substantially similar condition, treatment, or diagnosis as the patient requesting access. See § 381.028(7)(a), Fla....
Copy

Bartow HMA, LLC v. Kirkland, 126 So. 3d 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 6050895, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18154

...k management/quality assurance discovery limitations under sections 395.0191, 395.0198, 395.0197, 766.101, Florida Statutes (2012), and the Health Care Quality Improvement Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 11101-11152 (“HCQIA”). Bar-tow Regional also cited to section 381.028, Florida Statutes (2012), which purports to implement and define the scope of Amendment 7....
...is not preempted by federal law in the form of the HCQIA. See West Fla. Reg’l, 79 So.3d at 15-21 ; Columbia Hosp., 16 So.3d at 241-43 . And the Supreme Court of Florida has held that the scope of Amendment 7 cannot be limited by the application of section 381.028, which purports to implement the amendment....
Copy

North Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Durham, 991 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 4224278

...Bowen, 927 So.2d 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), and Florida Hospital Waterman, Inc. v. Buster, 932 So.2d 344 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Those cases concerned challenges to Amendment 7, redesignated as article X, section 25 of the Florida Constitution, and codified as section 381.028, Florida Statutes....
Copy

North Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Kroll, 940 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 3208052

...al incident."). The Legislature enacted legislation construing Amendment 7 not to apply to "records created, incidents occurring, or actions pending before November 2, 2004." See Chap. 2005-265, § 1, Laws of Fla. (effective June 20, 2005); see also § 381.028(5), Fla....
Copy

Tandem Healthcare, Inc. v. Benjamin, 969 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 4126518

...g the definitions used in the Florida Patient's Bill of Rights and Responsibilities." Id. at 1033. The First District found further support for this conclusion by referring to the definitions of health care facility and health care provider found in section 381.028(3), enacted in 2005 to codify Amendment 7....
Copy

Amber Edwards v. Larry D. Thomas, M.D., 229 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 2017).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida

...course of business by a health care provider is a more important consideration than the chilling effect created by the potential public disclosure of those records.”); see also See, 79 So.3d at 14 (“[The Hospital’s] argument that pursuant to [section 381.028(7)(b)1., Florida Statutes,] it must provide only certain reports ......
Copy

Myriam Ampuero-Martinez, etc. v. Cedars Healthcare Grp., etc., 139 So. 3d 271 (Fla. 2014).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2014 WL 321822

...records of adverse medical incidents involving patients other than the plaintiff but does not limit the production of those records to the same or substantially similar condition, treatment, or diagnosis as the patient requesting access.” Id. (citing § 381.028(7)(a), Fla....
...ding that the trial court’s ruling on those grounds did not depart from the essential requirements of the law. Id. at 191. Approximately three years prior to the Third District’s decision below, this Court declared subsection (7)(a) of section 381.028, Florida Statutes, invalid, as it “unconstitutionally impinge[d] upon the rights granted pursuant to amendment 7 ....
Copy

Cedars Healthcare Grp., etc. v. Myriam Ampuero-Martinez, etc. (Fla. 2014).

Published | Supreme Court of Florida

...records of adverse medical incidents involving patients other than the plaintiff but does not limit the production of those records to the same or substantially similar condition, treatment, or diagnosis as the patient requesting access.” Id. (citing § 381.028(7)(a), Fla....
...ding that the trial court’s ruling on those grounds did not depart from the essential requirements of the law. Id. at 191. Approximately three years prior to the Third District’s decision below, this Court declared subsection (7)(a) of section 381.028, Florida Statutes, invalid, as it “unconstitutionally impinge[d] upon the rights granted pursuant to amendment 7 ....
Copy

Bayfront Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Neavins, 920 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1653, 2006 WL 305487

...l court's order on the motion for protective order was entered in March 2005, and Bayfront's certiorari petition was filed in April 2005. On June 20, 2005, however, the "Patients' Right-to-Know About Adverse Medical Incidents Act" — now codified in section 381.028, Florida Statutes (2005) — became law. See ch.2005-265, § 2, at 2416, Laws of Fla. This legislation has the stated purpose of implementing article X, section 25 of the Florida Constitution. § 381.028(2)....

This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.