Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Moreno, Judge. Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, BARKETT, Circuit Judge, and RONEY, Senior Circuit Judge. BARKETT, Circuit Judge: The Attorney General of the State of Florida appeals the district court's order permanently enjoining the enforcement of Fla. Stat. Ann. § 395.3025(2) as preempted by the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C....

...Carlos Stincer and Dr. Hugo Gonzalez, who examined and treated Doe at Mercy Hospital. Doe claimed that the failure of the hospital and its doctors to provide her with her medical records violated the ADA and that the Florida statute permitting them to do so, § 395.3025(2), was preempted by the ADA....

...Advocacy Center, a federally-authorized protection and advocacy organization established under the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act ("PAMII"), 42 U.S.C. § 10801, and the Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights Act ("PAIR"), 29 U.S.C. § 794e. Section 395.3025 provides hospital patients with a right to obtain their medical records....

...h, in a timely manner, without delays for legal review, to any person admitted therein for care or treatment or treated thereat ... a true and correct copy of all patient records, ..., which ... are in the possession of the licensed facility...." § 395.3025(1). However, § 395.3025(2) states that "[t]his section does not apply to records maintained at any licensed facility the primary function of which is to provide psychiatric care to its patients, or to records of treatment for any mental or emotional condition at any other licensed facility...." While this case was pending in the district court, the Florida legislature enacted § 394.4615, spelling out a patient's right of access to mental health records, amending § 395.3025(1) in accordance with § 394.4615.1 Under § 394.4615, Patients shall have reasonable access to their clinical records, unless such access is determined by their patient's physician to be harmful to the patient....

...§ 394.4615(9). This case was resolved on motions for summary judgment. On December 2, 1997, the district court granted Advocacy Center's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Advocacy Center had standing to sue and that Fla. Stat. § 395.3025(2) was preempted by the ADA....

...brought suit on behalf of a specific individual who has been denied records pursuant to Fla. Stat. Ann. § 2 Because the parties and the district court focus first and foremost on PAMII, we do so as well. 6 395.3025(2)....

...issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult ... questions.' " Id. (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962)). 11 records, as permitted by § 395.3025(2)." Attached to the affidavit is a fax cover sheet stating that a specific authorization is required to release psychiatric, drug, alcohol, or HIV information and that records of such information cannot be released to a patient....

...ney General cannot stand. The sole issue before us on this appeal is whether the district court erred in entering a judgment that "Defendant Bob Butterworth, Attorney General of the State of Florida, is permanently enjoined from enforcing section 395.3025(2), Florida Statutes, and is further enjoined from promulgating any regulation, rule, policy, procedure, practice or guideline which is based on or relies upon section 395.3025(2), Florida Statutes." In my judgment, this injunction must be reversed on two independent grounds argued by the Attorney General on this appeal. First, and this is a reason relied upon by the Court's opinion, the Advocacy Center for Persons With Disabilities, Inc. ("Advocacy Center") has not established that there is no genuine issue of material fact concerning alleged actions under section 395.3025(2), Florida Statutes, which would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C....

...would or could take to enforce the statute against any doctor, hospital or mental institution. It is improper to bring the full force of a federal injunction against the Attorney General in the absence of any showing that, but for the injunction, he would either take steps to enforce section 395.3025(2), Florida Statutes, or would promulgate any regulation, rule, policy, precedure, practice or guideline which is based on or relies upon section 395.3025(2), Florida Statutes. I thus concur in the reversal of the injunction. 15 

...under Florida law. We address only the two claims that fail: negligence per se, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A Plaintiffs allege that AvMed was negligent per se when it violated section 395.3025 of the Florida Statutes by disclosing “Plaintiffs’ health information without authorization.” Plaintiffs state that this statute was enacted “to protect the confidentiality of medical information of Florida residents ....

...her consent.” Plaintiffs contend that they are a part of the class of people the statute sought to protect and that the harm they suffered was the type of harm the statute sought to avoid, thereby concluding that AvMed was negligent per se. Florida Statute section 395.3025(4) states that “[p]atient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the patient.” This statute is contained in a chapter regulating the licensure, development, establishment, and minimum standar...

...Because AvMed is an integrated managed-care organization and not a hospital, ambulatory surgical center, or mobile surgical facility, AvMed is not subject to this statute. See Hendley v. State, 58 So. 3d 296, 298 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011) (finding that Fla. Stat. § 395.3025 only applies to licensed facilities defined in § 395.002(16) and not to pharmacies). Section 395.3025 does not purport to regulate AvMed’s behavior, and so AvMed’s failure to comply with the statute cannot serve as a basis for a negligence per se claim. B While “every contract...

...right to privacy contained in the Florida Constitution, and any attempt on the part of the government to obtain such records must first meet constitutional muster."). In addition to the specific provisions of section 381.004 protecting HIV testing, section 395.3025 of the Florida Statutes also expressly provides that a patient's medical records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the patient....

...Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, BARKETT, Circuit Judge, and RONEY, Senior Circuit Judge. BARKETT, Circuit Judge: The Attorney General of the State of Florida appeals the district court’s order permanently enjoining the enforcement of Fla. Stat. Ann. § 395.3025(2) as preempted by the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C....

...Carlos Stincer and Dr. Hugo Gonzalez, who examined and treated Doe at Mercy Hospital. Doe claimed that the failure of the hospital and its doctors to provide her with her medical records violated the ADA and that the Florida statute permitting them to do so, § 395.3025(2), was preempted by the ADA....

...federally-authorized protection and advocacy organization established under the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act (“PAMII”), 42 U.S.C. § 10801, and the Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights Act (“PAIR”), 29 U.S.C. § 794e. Section 395.3025 provides hospital patients with a right to obtain their medical records. Under its terms, “[a]ny licensed facility, shall, upon written request, and only after discharge of the patient, furnish, in a timely manner, without delays for legal review, to any person admitted therein for care or treatment or treated thereat . . . a true and correct copy of all patient records, . . ., which . . . are in the possession of the licensed facility . . . .” § 395.3025(1). However, § 395.3025(2) states that “[t]his section does not apply to records maintained at any licensed facility the primary function of which is to provide psychiatric care to its patients, or to records of treatment for any mental or emotional condition at any other licensed facility . . . .” While 2 this case was pending in the district court, the Florida legislature enacted § 394.4615, spelling out a patient’s right of access to mental health records, amending § 395.3025(1) in accordance with § 394.4615.1 Under § 394.4615, Patients shall have reasonable access to their clinical records, unless such access is determined by their patient’s physician to be harmful to the patient....

...4615(9). This case was resolved on motions for summary judgment. On December 2, 1997, the district court granted Advocacy Center’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Advocacy Center had standing to sue and that Fla. Stat. § 395.3025(2) was preempted by the ADA....

...Center lacks standing in this case. First, the Attorney General argues that the Advocacy Center lacks standing under PAMII because it has not brought suit on behalf of a specific individual who has been denied records pursuant to Fla. Stat. Ann. § 395.3025(2)....

...sed facilities under Florida law.” Paragraph eight of Farmer’s affidavit states that “[o]n August 1, 1997, the Advocacy Center received a complaint from an individual that she had been denied access to her treatment records, as permitted by § 395.3025(2).” Attached to the affidavit is a fax cover sheet stating that a specific authorization is required to release psychiatric, drug, alcohol, or HIV information and that records of such information cannot be released to a patient....

...y General cannot stand. The sole issue before us on this appeal is whether the district court erred in entering a judgment that “Defendant Bob Butterworth, Attorney General of the State of Florida, is permanently enjoined from enforcing section 395.3025(2), Florida Statutes, and is further enjoined from promulgating any regulation, rule, policy, procedure, practice or guideline which is based on or relies upon section 395.3025(2), Florida Statutes.” In my judgment, this injunction must be reversed on two independent grounds argued by the Attorney General on this appeal. First, and this is a reason relied upon by the Court’s opinion, the Advocacy Center for Persons With Disabilities, Inc. (“Advocacy Center”) has not established that there is no genuine issue of material fact concerning alleged actions under section 395.3025(2), Florida Statutes, which would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C....

...tute against any doctor, hospital or mental institution. It is improper to bring the full force of a federal injunction against the Attorney General in the absence of any showing that, but for the injunction, he would either take steps to enforce section 395.3025(2), Florida Statutes, or would promulgate any regulation, rule, policy, procedure, practice or guideline which is based on or relies upon section 395.3025(2), Florida Statutes. I thus concur in the reversal of the injunction. 19 

...Johnson was hospitalized with injuries, and in the course of medical treatment, her blood was drawn. In seeking to prosecute Johnson for DUI manslaughter, the State attempted to notify her that her hospital records were being subpoenaed, pursuant to section 395.3025, Florida Statutes (1997)....

...a Statutes (1997) [2] to obtain the records. After the State filed a one-count information charging Johnson with DUI manslaughter, she moved to suppress her medical records, asserting that they were obtained in violation of the notice requirement of section 395.3025(4)(d)....

...It is the State's position that in light of the fact that Johnson will not suffer prejudice and that the failure to serve notice was not willful, the proper remedy is to allow the State an opportunity to subpoena the medical records in accordance with section 395.3025(4)(d). The issue before this Court is whether the trial court under the facts of this case properly used the exclusionary rule [3] to remedy a violation of section 395.3025....

...est, and this Court has held that a subpoena issued during an ongoing criminal investigation satisfies a compelling state interest when there is a clear connection between illegal activity and the person whose privacy has allegedly been invaded. [6] Section 395.3025 is a legislative attempt to balance a patient's privacy rights against legitimate access to medical records....

...records are produced. [7] It is in this context that we are asked to review the consequences of the State's failure to comply with the statute. III. THE PRESENT CASE The issues before us are whether the State can avoid the procedural requirements of section 395.3025(4)(d) by use of its investigative subpoena power, and if not, what sanction is to be imposed when the State does not comply with these procedural requirements. Based on the clear language of the statute, we hold that the state attorney's subpoena power under section 27.04, Florida Statutes (1997), cannot override the notice requirement of section 395.3025(4)(d)....

...4th DCA 1995); Hunter v. State, 639 So.2d 72 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); State v. Buchanon, 610 So.2d 467, 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); State v. Wenger, 560 So.2d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). To hold otherwise would render the statute meaningless. Having determined that section 395.3025 is applicable, we next address the *394 consequences of the State's noncompliance in light of the historic purpose of the exclusionary rule....

...en in a constitutional and statutorily permissible manner because of its past transgression. Although the exclusionary rule can serve its historic purpose when the State does not make a good faith effort to comply with the procedural requirements of section 395.3025, we do not find that to be the case in this instance....

...tate made a good faith effort to comply with the statute. [10] However, we also disapprove of Manney to the extent that the Fifth District would never preclude the State from using the medical records, so long as the State subsequently complies with section 395.3025 by establishing reasonable suspicion through the introduction of facts that are independent of the records themselves....

...effort on the part of the State to put the defendant on notice. I write separately to emphasize the necessity for application of the exclusionary rule when the State does not make a good faith effort to provide the statutorily required notice under section 395.3025(4)(d), a statute designed to protect the privileged and confidential status accorded to a patient's medical records....

...When the cost of losing evidence is compared to the minimal benefits realized from violating the statute, then prosecutorial compliance with the statute will be likely to occur in the future. Without the threat of the exclusion of evidence, the incentive for a prosecutor to comply with section 395.3025(4)(d) is minimal....

...y interests that the statute seeks to protect. Id. at 1132-33. Thus, I agree with the majority's disapproval of Manney to the *396 extent that the Fifth District would never preclude the State from using the evidence. ANSTEAD, J., concurs. NOTES [1] Section 395.3025 provides in pertinent part: (4) Patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain, but appropriate disclosure may be made without such consent to: ....

.... (d) In 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....

...3d DCA 2001) ("The evident purpose of the statute is to give the patient an opportunity to object to the subpoena—if the patient has any legally sufficient reason why the subpoena should be quashed or modified."); Klossett v. State, 763 So.2d 1159, 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) ("The purpose of the notice requirement under section 395.3025(4)(d) is to allow the patient an opportunity to object to the release of his or her medical information, thus requiring the State to show the relevancy of the records requested before the subpoena issues.")....

...Michael Demario brought a class action lawsuit against Baptist Hospital, contending that he had been overcharged when he requested a copy of his medical records from the hospital. He alleged that the hospital calculated the copying charge at a rate which exceeds the amount allowed by subsection 395.3025(1), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...[4] If, as the hospital suggested at oral argument, the papers could not be located after diligent inquiry, then an affidavit should have been filed to that effect. [5] Since excusable neglect has not been shown, we need not reach the claim of meritorious defense, namely, the proper interpretation of section 395.3025, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...Further, a parent can request and receive information "limited" to a summary of the child's treatment plan and current physical and mental condition. § 394.4615(9), Fla. Stat. (2000). While parents are entitled to hospital records of their children, these do not include psychiatric care records. See § 395.3025(1)-(2), Fla....

....") is a clear expression of the people's intent that existing law was sufficient to implement the provisions of the amendment and that no further legislation was necessary. For example, current legislation should be sufficient to address the issue of fees and timeliness of compliance. See, e.g., § 395.3025, Fla....

...If the Legislature intended to require pharmacies to notify patients in connection with section 893.07, the Legislature would have included this requirement in the statute, as it did in statutes governing disclosure by other health care entities. See § 395.3025, Fla. Stat. (hospitals); §§ 400.0077 & 400.022(1)(m), Fla. Stat. (nursing homes); and § 456.057(7), Fla. Stat. (physicians). The cases advanced by Appellee, pertaining to the procedures for a hospital's disclosure of medical records governed by section 395.3025, Florida Statutes, do not apply to the pharmacy records at issue in this appeal....

...After police received the records, they placed them under seal, and the State Attorney sent the following notice to petitioner: "The State is presently investigating a possible violation of Florida State Statute 893.13 against your client [petitioner]. Pursuant to Florida State Statute 395.3025(4)(d) and F.S.S....

...n the presence of the administrator or doctor pending your opportunity to be heard on your clients right [sic] privacy issues, in reference to the ongoing investigation. "This letter constitutes proper notice as contemplated by Florida State Statute 395.3025(4)(d)....

...suance of a subpoena to seize medical records. The State did not proceed by search warrant in that case, as it has done here. Indeed, as the court itself explained: "The issues before us are whether the State can avoid the procedural requirements of section 395.3025(4)(d) by use of its investigative subpoena power, and if not, what sanction is to be imposed when the State does not comply with these procedural requirements. Based on the clear language of the statute, we hold that the state attorney's subpoena power under section 27.04, Florida Statutes (1997), cannot override the notice requirement of section 395.3025(4)(d)." [e.s.] 814 So.2d at 393....

...ns described for the purpose of bringing the property or person(s) before a magistrate or other court. The statute does not distinguish among types of property. There is no special exception for medical records. When the legislature enacted sections 395.3025 and 456.057, Florida Statutes (2003) to address the "disclosure" of medical records, it neither referenced the warrant statute in them nor amended the *399 warrant statute to reference the medical records statutes....

...The special nature of the doctor-patient relationship dates back 2400 years to the age of Hippocrates. From that point forward, medical records have been the focus of constitutional, statutory, and regulatory protections. See, e.g., Art. I, § 23, Fla. Const. See also §§ 395.3025 and 456.057, Fla....

...ngly overlooks the court's recognition that medical records fall within the right to privacy afforded by section 23. State v. Johnson, 814 So.2d 390 (Fla.2002). Our legislature has consistently protected medical records. Most significantly, sections 395.3025 and 456.057 specifically address the "disclosure" of medical records....

...o relate to the issuance of subpoenas. Op. at 395. I disagree. I know the difference between a subpoena and a warrant. I also recognize the protective mechanism devised by the legislature to prevent unwarranted "disclosure" of medical records. See §§ 395.3025 and 456.057, Fla....

...e same. The simple fact remains — our legislature has mandated greater protection for a person's medical records than other types of property. That protection is found under the statutory headings of "confidentiality" and "patient's records." See §§ 395.3025 and 456.057, Fla....

...losure of other prescriptions are not relevant and should not be disclosed. [16] ON MOTION FOR REHEARING, MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC, AND CERTIFICATION PER CURIAM. We deny all rehearing but certify the following question to the Supreme Court: Do §§ 395.3025(4) and 456.057(5)(a) bar the State from obtaining a search warrant to seize and inspect a patient's medical records without providing the patient notice and a prior hearing to oppose the seizure and inspection? FARMER, C.J., TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur....

...(1982) (adding the following: "This right shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court."). [6] See House Joint Resolution No. 31-H (June 24, 1982). [7] See § 395.3025(4)(d), Fla....

...to the sample of blood drawn pursuant to an officer's request. It served an investigative subpoena duces tecum on the hospital but did not give notice to the defendant. We affirmed the suppression of the medical records because of noncompliance with section 395.3025(4), which creates a general right of privacy in a patient's hospital records. We reasoned that under section 395.3025(4): "a patient's medical records [are] protected under Florida's right to privacy.......

...ubstances in the blood obtained pursuant to this section shall be released to a court, prosecuting attorney, defense attorney, or law enforcement officer in connection with an alleged violation of s. 327.35 upon request for such information." [e.s.] Section 395.3025(4), the statute at issue in Rutherford, is clearly one of the other provisions of law "pertaining to the confidentiality of hospital records" mentioned in the introductory clause in section 327.352(3). In contrast to Rutherford 's section 395.3025(4), the boating consent statute, section 327.352(3), allows the police and prosecutor to have blood alcohol samples merely upon the asking, so long as the *342 request is "in connection with an alleged violation of s....

...State, 706 So.2d 100, 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). We do agree with appellant that law enforcement officials erred when they examined appellant's medical records, upon receiving them from Navy investigators, without first obtaining a subpoena pursuant to section 395.3025(4), Florida Statutes (1997)....

...Timothy Sneed was charged with second degree murder for the shooting death of Cory Thompkins. [1] The day after the shooting, Sneed appeared at Pan American Hospital complaining of a gunshot wound. The police obtained Sneed's medical records from the hospital without giving notice to Sneed or his attorney, in violation of section 395.3025(4)(d), Florida Statutes (1998)....

...The State used the hospital records to cast doubt on Sneed's credibility. He was found guilty and sentenced to thirty-five years in prison, with a three-year minimum mandatory. On appeal, Sneed argued that the trial court erred in admitting the hospital records, where they had first been obtained in violation of section 395.3025(4)(d)....

...2d DCA), review granted, 767 So.2d 461 (Fla.2000). Sneed v. State, 802 So.2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). The Florida Supreme Court resolved this conflict among the districts in State v. Johnson, 814 So.2d 390 (Fla.2002), by holding that hospital records obtained in violation of section 395.3025 were admissible where the State had made a good faith effort to comply with the statute....

...* (d) In 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....

...See § 893.13(7)(a)(9), Florida Statutes (2007 & 2008). She filed a motion to suppress, alleging that a detective had obtained her patient profiles and prescriptions from two pharmacies without a subpoena or warrant. Tamulonis contended that sections 456.057(7)(a)(3) [1] and 395.3025(4)(d), [2] Florida Statutes (2007 & 2008), required law enforcement officers to obtain a subpoena before procuring her records....

...However, section 456.057 regulates health care practitioners, and pharmacists and pharmacies are expressly excluded from the definition of "health care practitioner." See § 456.057(2)(b). Tamulonis argued below that her pharmacy records were also protected by section 395.3025. Section 395.3025, however, does not support Tamulonis's position because the statute applies to "licensed facilit[ies]," which are defined as "hospital[s], ambulatory surgical center[s], or mobile surgical facilit[ies]." § 395.002(16)....

...If the Legislature intended to require pharmacies to notify patients in connection with section 893.07, the Legislature would have included this requirement in the statute, as it did in statutes governing disclosure by other health care entities. See § 395.3025, Fla....

...In 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 to the patient or the patient's legal representative by the party seeking such records. [2] Section 395.3025 provides in pertinent part: (4) Patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain, but appropriate disclosure may be made without such consent to: .......

...The trial court concluded that section 27.04, Florida Statutes (1993), which gives the state the authority to summon witnesses, authorizes the state to subpoena medical records under these circumstances, so long as proper notice is given as required by section 395.3025(4), Florida Statutes (1993), which provides that medical records are confidential but obtainable by subpoena issued after notice....

...sh its goal. Shaktman v. State, 553 So.2d 148 (Fla.1989). A compelling state interest exists upon a showing that the materials contain information relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. State v. Rivers, 787 So.2d 952, 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Section 395.3025, Florida Statutes, outlines the procedure for obtaining a person's medical records under subpoena, stating: Patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain, but appropriate disclosure may be made without such consent . . . In 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....

...ld be suppressed when law enforcement made no good faith effort to comply." Id. at ___; see also Johnson, 814 So.2d at 394 (holding that the exclusionary rule may apply when the State improperly obtains a defendant's hospital records in violation of section 395.3025, Florida Statutes (1997))....

...The State charged him with felony DUI and subpoenaed all of the defendant's hospital medical records. The defendant moved to suppress all medical records, arguing he was never given notice that the State intended to subpoena his medical records, as required by section 395.3025 of the Florida Statutes....

...She testified that because it was routine practice not to include a return envelope or request return service, she had nothing to prove the defendant had notice of the subpoena. The trial court denied the defendant's motion, ruling that the State had attempted in good faith to comply with the notice provision of section 395.3025. Section 395.3025 provides in pertinent part as follows: (4) Patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent to the person to whom they pertain, but appropriate disclosure may be made without such consent to: ....

...(d) In 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. The purpose of the notice requirement under section 395.3025(4)(d) is to allow the patient an opportunity to object to the release of his or her medical information, thus requiring the State to show the relevancy of the records requested before the subpoena issues....

...In Rutherford, the case upon which appellant relies, the state subpoenaed the patient's medical records without providing notice to the patient. The hospital complied with the state's request. The trial court suppressed the records on the ground that the state had failed to comply with the notice provision in section 395.3025(4)(d), Florida Statutes (1995) and the procedural requirements in Hunter and the district court affirmed....

...onsent and without a subpoena or proper notice. Thomas also moved to suppress the same blood test results contained in Thomas's medical records which the State obtained pursuant to a subpoena. Thomas contended the subpoena was issued in violation of section 395.3025, Florida Statutes (1999). In its order denying the motion to suppress, the trial court determined that the State complied with the notice requirement of section 395.3025(4)(d) and that Thomas was given a reasonable period of time within which to object to the issuance of the subpoena, but failed to do so....

...nd two counts of DUI property damage. 3 Guardado filed a written plea of not guilty to the two counts of DUI manslaughter (UBAL). The State then notified Guardado that it sought to subpoena his medical records. Guardado objected pursuant to sections 395.3025(4) and 456.057, Florida Statutes (2005), but the court granted the State authority to subpoena the medical records based on the State’s compelling interest....

...hed with the presumption of correctness on appeal. McNamara v. State, 357 So.2d 410, 412 (Fla.1978). Patient medical records are protected under Florida’s right to privacy as well as statute. Art. I, § 23, Fla. Const.; McAlevy, 947 So.2d at 529 . Section 395.3025(4)(d), Florida Statutes, is a legislative attempt to balance a patient’s privacy rights against legitimate access to medical records. State v. Johnson, 814 So.2d 390, 393 (Fla.2002). Section 395.3025(4)(d) outlines the procedure for obtaining medical records under subpoena: *1213 (4) Patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain, but appropriate disclosure may be made without such consent ... (d) In 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....

...�s failure to do so below was fatal to the order on appeal. Id. at 152 . However, the court held that the State was not precluded from again seeking the medical records through a subpoena, because the State did not, in bad faith, fail to comply with section 395.3025(4)(d): “If the state subpoenas the medical records again and, upon objection, proffers evidence which demonstrates the relevance of the blood-alcohol results, then the trial court may allow the issuance of the subpoena.” Id....

...its actions below did not rise to the level of bad faith. See Cerroni, 823 So.2d at 152 (holding that “the state is not precluded from again seeking the medical records through a subpoena, because the state did not in bad faith fail to comply with section 395.3025(4)(d)”; “[i]f the state subpoenas the medical records again and, upon objection, proffers evidence which demonstrates the relevance of the blood-alcohol results, then the trial court may allow the issuance of the subpoena.”)....

...na. The other involves statutory knock-and-announce provisions. In State v. Johnson, 814 So.2d 390, 394 (Fla.2002), the court dealt with whether the exclusionary rule should be applied as a remedy for the State's violation of the notice provision of section 395.3025(4), Florida Statutes (1997), which provides for disclosure of confidential medical records pursuant to a subpoena. The statute specifically provides for the giving of "proper notice by the party seeking such records to the patient or his or her legal representative." § 395.3025(4)(d)....

...uld not be applied where there *32 has been a good faith effort to comply with the statute: "Although the exclusionary rule can serve its historic purpose when the State does not make a good faith effort to comply with the procedural requirements of section 395.3025, we do not find that to be the case in this instance." Id....

...Florida Statutes (1987). This judicially created remedy was announced as a matter of common law in Benefield. This common law exclusionary rule is based on the sanctity of the home and the need for privacy."). The knock-and-announce provisions, like section 395.3025(4), are silent with respect to the remedies that are available for their enforcement....

...and seizure in violation of her right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment and the Florida Constitution. She alleged that her prescriptions, which were obtained from a pharmacy without a warrant, were medical records protected under Florida law by section 395.3025(4)(d), Florida Statutes (2007)....

...Detective Robinson learned that Fernandez had worked for that doctor. Detective Robinson met with the doctor, who stated that he had not written the prescriptions at issue. After the evidence was presented, the trial court stated that medical records are protected by section 395.3025(4)(d)....

...tion 893.07(4) is unconstitutional. In a written order, the trial court suppressed the evidence on the basis that the prescriptions constituted confidential patient records, citing Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 97 S.Ct. 869, 51 L.Ed.2d 64 (1977), and section 395.3025(4)....

...e on its constitutionality. On appeal, the State argues that section 893.07(4) applies to the inspection and copying of prescription records and does not require a subpoena or warrant for law enforcement to access such records. The State claims that section 395.3025(4) does not apply to pharmacies. We note that the First District recently held that section 395.3025 does not apply to pharmacy records provided by the pharmacy to police during a "doctor shopping" investigation. See State v. Carter, 23 So.3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). The court held that section 893.07(4) applied and that it did not require pharmacies to "withhold such records until a warrant is presented." Id. We do not reach the application of sections 395.3025(4) or 893.07(4) to the instant case, however, because further proceedings are necessary to determine whether Fernandez had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the prescriptions....

...in the prescriptions. See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 *124 U.S. 128, 130 n. 1, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978); Hicks, 929 So.2d at 16. Reversed and remanded. SILBERMAN, J., Concurs. FULMER, CAROLYN K., Senior Judge, Concurs in result only. NOTES [1] Section 395.3025 provides in relevant part: (4) Patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain but appropriate disclosure may be made without such consent to: .......

...In either case, records shall be kept and made available for a period of at least 2 years for inspection and copying by law enforcement officers whose duty it is to enforce the laws of this state relating to controlled substances. [3] In order to be entitled to application of the exclusionary rule for a violation of section 395.3025(4), Fernandez has to show that a constitutional violation occurred....

...Frank was hospitalized with injuries, and in the course of medical treatment, his blood was drawn. About eight weeks after the crash, the investigating police officer obtained the results of Frank's blood alcohol test from the hospital without complying with the notice requirements of section 395.3025, Florida Statutes (2003)....

...[1] Any attempt on the part of the government to obtain such records must meet constitutional muster. State v. Johnson, 814 So.2d 390, 393 (Fla.2002). However, the right to privacy is not absolute and will yield to compelling governmental interests. Section 395.3025 represents the legislature's effort to balance a patient's privacy rights against the State's compelling interest in access to medical records....

...The purpose of the notification requirement is to permit the patient to assert any legal objections he or she may have to the issuance of a subpoena before the records are produced. [2] Here, it is undisputed that law enforcement made no effort to comply with section 395.3025 prior to obtaining Frank's medical records. As a result, we are bound by the supreme court's holding in Johnson. In that case, the court held that where the State fails to establish that the *331 State, or its agents, made a good faith effort to comply with section 395.3025, any improperly obtained evidence must be excluded....

...e or hearing. Limbaugh v. State, 887 So.2d 387, 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), review denied, 903 So.2d 189 (Fla.2005). Consequently, the State has an available alternative if for some reason it is unwilling, or, unable, to comply with the requirements of section 395.3025(4)(d).

...of State v. Rutherford, 707 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), disapproved by State v. Johnson, 814 So.2d 390 (Fla.2002) (disapproving Rutherford to the extent that it requires application of the exclusionary rule anytime the state fails to comply with section 395.3025, Florida Statutes)....

...In criminal investigations such as the one involving appellant, however, the constitutional right may be overcome provided certain procedural safeguards are met. The procedure for obtaining a person's medical records pursuant to a subpoena is outlined in section 395.3025, Florida Statutes....

...wo grounds: first, because the State had failed to provide any formal notice or documentation of the blood alcohol test results despite Eaton's notice of discovery; and second, because the blood alcohol test results had been obtained in violation of section 395.3025(4)(d), Florida Statutes (2002)....

...on 316.1933, Florida Statutes (2002). Because the results of this blood draw showed Eaton's blood alcohol level to be within the legal limit for driving, the State wanted the test results of the blood drawn for medical purposes for use at trial. [2] Section 395.3025(4)(d), Florida Statutes (2002), provides: (4) Patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain, but appropriate disclosure may be made without such consent to: .......

...nt or his or her legal representative. [3] Because the trial court excluded the evidence on the discovery violation ground, it never reached the merits of Eaton's second argument—that the blood alcohol test results had been obtained in violation of section 395.3025(4)(d).

...e Evidence Division pending further order of the court. Within days of their seizure, notices were either personally served upon or mailed by return receipt to each patient. The notices stated that the State was providing notice pursuant to sections 395.3025 and 456.057, Florida Statutes (2004)....

...Rattray could not move forward until the seized medical records were unsealed, reviewed, and evaluated by a medical doctor. The detectives' testimony outlined the probable cause used to obtain the search warrant. The respondents argued that the state could not use a search warrant to obtain medical records, and that section 395.3025(4)(d) [3] provided the only method for obtaining medical records from a practitioner....

...the object of the investigation. The trial court ruled that the state was not permitted to use a search warrant to seize and seal medical records in the custody of a practitioner who was the subject of a criminal investigation. The court found that section 395.3025 provided the exclusive method a law enforcement agency must use to obtain a patient's medical records....

...tted to the clerk of the circuit court for safekeeping during the pendency of any appeal. For the reasons set forth below, we quash the trial court's order. The question which is presented to this court is whether a subpoena as mentioned in sections 395.3025(4)(d) and 456.057(5)(a) [4] is the only mechanism for obtaining disclosure of medical records when all the safeguards of sections 395.3025 and 456.057 are met....

...s seizure and review of medical records under a valid search warrant without prior notice or hearing." Limbaugh, 887 So.2d at 398. This court denied rehearing in Limbaugh, [5] but certified the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: " Do §§ 395.3025(4) and 456.057(5)(a) bar the State from obtaining a search warrant to seize and inspect a patient's medical records without providing the patient notice and a prior hearing to oppose the seizure and inspection? " Id....

...This case is factually similar to Limbaugh with one exception. The individual under investigation in the instant case is the doctor from whom the records were seized, not the patient, as was the case in Limbaugh. Although Limbaugh resolves the issue that sections 395.3025 and 456.057 are not the exclusive method that a law enforcement agency must use to obtain a patient's medical records in conducting a criminal investigation, it is not dispositive of the right of privacy implication in obtaining the medical records of innocent third parties....

...MAY, J., and BLANC, PETER D., Associate Judge, concur. NOTES [1] Dr. Charles F. Rattray is the individual under criminal investigation, but not a party to this appeal. [2] The trial judge that conducted the hearing was the same judge who issued the search warrant. [3] Section 395.3025(4), Florida Statutes provides: Patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain, but appropriate disclosure may be made without such consent to: (d) In any civil or cri...

...constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. 1 More specifically, Mr. Hendley argued that the law enforcement officers had obtained information from Hedges Pharmacy and from Sarasota Emergency Associates in violation of sections 395.3025(4)(d) and 465.017(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), without first obtaining a subpoena or a warrant and without probable cause....

...detectives to obtain the information from the pharmacy without a subpoena. 4 On appeal, Mr. Hendley argues that the Sarasota detectives improperly seized his records from Hedges Pharmacy without a warrant, a subpoena, or notice to him under sections 395.3025(4)(d) and 465.017(2)(a). Thus the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We disagree. Section 395.3025 applies to “licensed facilities],” which are defined as “a hospital, ambulatory surgical center, or mobile surgical facility.” 5 Therefore, that statute does not control whether law enforcement officers may obtain records from a pharmacy such as Hedges. See State v. Tamulonis, 39 So.3d 524, 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (stating that section 395.3025 does not apply to pharmacies); State v....

...ent. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and SORONDO, JJ. COPE, J. Under Florida law, a subpoena can be issued for an individual's hospital records upon "proper notice by the party seeking such records to the patient or his or her legal representative." § 395.3025(4)(d), Fla....

...ubpoena for Medical Records," intended for the defendant. The notice indicated that the State would serve a subpoena in ten days on Mariners Hospital for the defendant's post-accident medical records, and that this notice was being given pursuant to section 395.3025, Florida Statutes....

...g to blood alcohol results and/or impairment." Under Florida law, a hospital's patient records can be obtained by subpoena, but the statute requires "proper notice by the party seeking such records to the patient or his or her legal representative." § 395.3025(4)(d), Fla....

...We have carefully considered the reasoning of the majority opinion in Rutherford, but are not persuaded thereby. The Rutherford majority expressed the fear that if the State can reissue the same subpoena for hospital records, this will eliminate any incentive for the prosecutor to follow the notice requirement of paragraph 395.3025(4)(d)....

...The statute authorizing the state attorney to issue an investigative subpoena is found in section 27.04, Florida Statutes, but the statute does not contain a cross reference or other language calling attention to the fact that notice must be given under section 395.3025 in cases in which a patient's hospital records are subpoenaed. Adding an appropriate crossreference in section 27.04 would help assure that the notice requirement for hospital records is not overlooked. It may also be advisable for section 395.3025 to spell out how notice is to be given and what proof of notice must be supplied....

...[3] The notice stated: NOTICE OF INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENA FOR MEDICAL RECORDS TO: JOANNE FAHNER PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Office of the State Attorney has procured from the Clerk of Court, the attached subpoena for the medical records of JOANNE FAHNER, from MARINERS HOSPITAL. This Notice is given pursuant to Florida Statutes section 395.3025....

...HCC liable to a certified class represented by Frankie McRae, Phyllis Peterson, and Weiner & Cannon, P.A. ["the Representatives"]. The Representatives brought suit on behalf of all persons and entities who were charged $2 by HCC under section *1178 395.3025(1), Florida Statutes, for medical records reproduced from nonpaper sources such as microfilm or microfiche. The lower court ruled that the proper charge should have been $1. Although we approve the lower court's interpretation of section 395.3025(1), we believe the lower court erred in determining liability in favor of the Representatives without consideration of the multiple affirmative defenses....

...Weiner & Cannon received an invoice along with their copies which explained that $50 had been charged for 25 copies from microfiche. They paid the fee. All three parties subsequently brought a class action against HCC claiming they were overcharged. HCC's principal defense is that section 395.3025(1), Florida Statutes authorizes a charge of $2 for each page of paper it copies from nonpaper sources such as microfilm and microfiche....

...28.24(9)(c), may not exceed $1 per page, as provided in s. 28.24(8)(a). A fee of up to $1 may be charged for each year of records requested. These charges shall apply to all records furnished, whether directly from the facility or from a copy service providing these services on behalf of the facility.... § 395.3025(1), Fla....

...Neither the motion nor the accompanying memorandum addressed any of HCC's affirmative defenses. The Representatives responded with their own motion, requesting "partial summary judgment as to liability and/or in the alternative, as to the statutory interpretation" of section 395.3025....

...The motion argued liability solely on the basis of the statute and did not address HCC's affirmative defenses. Prior to the hearing on the motions, the parties filed with the trial court numerous depositions and affidavits as well as legislative history for section 395.3025 and its predecessor. Near the end of the several hour hearing, at which the parties presented the trial judge with their interpretations of section 395.3025, HCC briefly argued that the statute as construed by the Representatives amounted to an unconstitutional deprivation of property without just compensation....

...s affirmative defenses. Apart from this *1179 exchange, there was no discussion concerning HCC's affirmative defenses. The trial court granted a partial summary judgment in favor of the Representatives. In the summary judgment order, the court found section 395.3025(1) clearly and unambiguously [1] to instruct licensed medical facilities and their copying services to charge no more than $1 for each page of paper copied from microfilm or microfiche....

...r copies of medical records. The court's order concluded that HCC is liable to the Representatives for all monies it received in excess of the $1 statutorily authorized fee. The primary issue on appeal is the proper interpretation of the language of section 395.3025(1)....

...dollar amounts. HCC adds that the legislature could not have intended the $1 charge to apply only to "instruments in the public record," as it does with the clerks' statute, since medical records are private and confidential, not public records. See § 395.3025(3), Fla....

...H.Comm. on Health Care, HB 498, Staff Analysis & Economic Impact Statement, June 16, 1988. In 1992, as the 1982 revision was due to sunset, the legislature substantially revised chapter 395. The medical records statute was again renumbered, this time to section 395.3025, and subsection (1) of this revision is the statute at issue in this case....

...ealized by establishing copying fees which are consistent with the fees administered by the Clerk of the Circuit Court and by establishing a charge for each year of records that is requested to be searched. Id. at 6. With respect to the enactment of section 395.3025(1), the statement concluded: Section 32. Renumbers s. 395.017, F.S., as s. 395.3025, F.S., to require a written request prior to the release of any patient records....

...HCC finds this language "none too clear" but offers its interpretation that the analyses evidence the legislature's intent to create uniformity among medical facilities and copying services for their charges and to cap the charges at either $1 or $2. In arguing that the trial court's interpretation of section 395.3025(1) was erroneous, HCC focuses on the difference in the costs of reproducing documents stored on paper compared with the costs of reproducing documents stored on microfilm or microfiche....

...Testimony was also offered by HCC concerning the differences in the labor expended by the clerks' offices in fulfilling copy requests and that expended by medical facilities. HCC complains on appeal that this information was ignored by the trial court. We conclude that the lower court correctly determined that section 395.3025(1) requires medical records providers such as HCC to charge no more than $1 for paper copies printed on 8½ × 14" or smaller paper, regardless of whether the source for the copy was a paper, microfilm or microfiche record....

...een charges based not on the medium of the source record, but on the form of the reproduction actually purchased from the clerk. Construing the medical records statute to operate "as" does the clerks' statute, then, the exception to the $1 charge in section 395.3025(1) applies only to nonpaper copies actually purchased by a former patient....

...Ace Transp., Inc., 664 So.2d 62, 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Second, the legislature is presumed to have a working knowledge of the English language and to know the ordinary rules of grammar. 49 Fla. Jur.2d Statutes § 129, at 173 (1984). An examination of the second sentence in section 395.3025(1) reveals that charges are assessed to a former patient at $1 per copied page, as the "exclusive charge for copies" may not exceed "$1 per page." The exception for "nonpaper records," therefore, modifies the $1 charge per page of co...

...cord" is likewise rejected. The portions of the statute in pari materia are the charging schemes created by the legislature. Each statute independently controls what materials are subject to copying charges. Finally, we believe our interpretation of section 395.3025(1) produces the most commonsense result....

...d records, a format which is controlled by medical facilities and copying services. [6] A patient has no hand in the decision of when or if a medical facility will place its paper records on microfilm or microfiche, yet under HCC's interpretation of section 395.3025(1), the patient's costs for obtaining copies of medical records could vary by 100 percent depending on the medical facility's chosen form of storage. In sum, we hold that section 395.3025(1) required HCC to charge no more than $1 per page for paper copies of medical records requested by former patients regardless of whether the source of the copies was paper, microfilm or microfiche....

...Bean presents in his written motion, but these are not the questions raised by the State at the suppression hearing. At the hearing and on appeal, Mr. Bean has not extensively argued his theory under section 456.057. Instead, he argues a similar theory under section 395.3025, Florida Statutes (2006)....

...document to the detective. Section 456.057 does not contain a statutory exclusionary rule. Cf. 934.03, Fla. Stat. (2006) (excluding wiretap recordings obtained in violation of chapter 934). It appears likely that Mr. Bean has shifted his analysis to section 395.3025 because of the supreme court's decision in State v. Johnson, 814 So.2d 390 (Fla.2002), which discussed the application of the exclusionary rule to a statutory violation of section 395.3025....

...Virtually all remaining aspects of the order collapse due to this error. Moreover, the order purports to make rulings under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, section 12, of the Florida Constitution when those issues were not raised in Mr. Bean's motion. It relies extensively on section 395.3025 when there is no factual basis to determine that any licensed hospital was involved in this case and that statute was not alleged as a basis for suppression....

...n, the records sought to be produced in Rutherford were held by the health care provider, the hospital. In arguing that the right of privacy applies to protect the medical records of the insureds in the possession of Mutual, the respondent points to section 395.3025(4)(d), Florida Statutes (1997), which prohibits a licensed medical facility, such as a hospital, from disclosing patient records without consent, section 455.667(5)(c), which prohibits health care practitioners from disclosing patien...

...l Ka-noski from several pharmacies during his investigation of allegations that Yutzy obtained a controlled substance from a physician by withholding information. In the order, the trial court ruled that the corporal’s actions contravened sections 395.3025(4)(d) and 456.057(7)(a)(3), Florida Statutes (2007), and constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment that violated Yutzy’s reasonable expectation of privacy in her pharmaceutical records....

...2d DCA 2010), or the First District’s decision in State v. Carter, 23 So.3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), which we relied upon in Tamulonis . Both of these opinions address all of the findings in the trial court’s order and mandate reversal. In Tamulonis , this court held that neither section 395.3025(4)(d) (applying to licensed facilities, the definition of which does not include pharmacies) nor section 456.057(7)(a)(3) (regulating health care practitioners, the definition of which expressly excludes pharmacists) required law enforcement to obtain a subpoena before procuring a patient’s pharmacy records....

...doctors — as well as the drugs found on him and his subsequent confession — should be excluded because the evidence was obtained without subpoenas or search warrants. To support this contention, Shuki-tis relied on sections 456.057(7)(a)(3) and 395.3025(4)(d), Florida Statutes (2008)....

...lose the medical records nor discuss the medical condition of a patient except upon the written authorization of the patient [or] upon issuance of a subpoena from a court of competent jurisdiction and with proper notice to the patient.” Relying on section 395.3025, Shuki-tis further argued in his motion that patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain, but appropriate disclosure may be made without such consent in any civil...

...information about his treatment, the date and time of his clinic appointment, the marijuana and Oxycodone found on him at the time of his arrest, and his confession subsequent to arrest. Initially, we note that this court already has concluded that section 395.3025 does not apply to pharmacies but rather “applies to ‘licensed facilities],’ which are defined as ‘hospital[s], ambulatory surgical center[s], or mobile surgical facilities]’ ” in section 395.002(16). See State v. Tamulonis, 39 So.3d 524, 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (alteration in original). As such, the trial court here erred in applying section 395.3025 to Shukitis’ records that were obtained from the pharmacies....

...If the [legislature intended to require pharmacies to notify patients in connection with section 893.07, the legislature would have included this requirement in the statute, as it did in statutes governing disclosure by other health care entities. See § 395.3025, Fla....

...(hospitals); §§ 400.0077 & 400.022(l)(m), Fla. Stat. (nursing homes); and § 456.057(7), Fla. Stat. (physicians). Accordingly, it was error for the trial court to grant the suppression of Shukitis’ pharmacy records based on its application of section 395.3025. The trial court also erred in applying section 395.3025 to the information obtained from Shukitis’ physicians....

...See Motion to Suppress, pp. 7-14. Defendant's motion was denied as facially insufficient because the medical records were properly obtained pursuant to a subpoena, and the alleged violation of doctor-patient privilege was not a violation by the State of § 395.3025(4)(d)....

...Over the defense’s objection, the trial court agreed with the state and approved the issuance of the subpoena. 1 The trial court acknowledged that the preliminary order was dis-positive. Patient records are confidential and generally may not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain. See § 395.3025(4), Fla. Stat. (2000). The state is allowed to subpoena a patient’s medical records without the patient’s consent if the state follows the requirements set out by 'the legislature in section 395.3025(4)(d), Florida Statutes (2000): (4) Patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the con *152 sent of the person to whom they pertain, but appropriate disclosure may be made without such consent to: (d) In any c...

...e the subpoena may issue. The state’s failure to do so below is fatal to the order on appeal. However, the state is not precluded from again seeking the medical records through a subpoena, because the state did not in bad faith fail to comply with section 395.3025(4)(d), Florida Statutes (2000)....

...osure. See State v. Famiglietti , 817 So.2d 901 , 903-04 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Although, Barahona failed to raise any of the exceptions listed in section 90.503(4), she argues that she is nevertheless entitled to the records under sections 456.057 and 395.3025, Florida Statutes (2017), both of which she claims are exceptions to section 90.503. The former governs general medical records. The latter governs patient and personnel records. Based on our review of sections 395.3025, 456.057, and 90.503, and the relevant case law, we reject this argument. First, subparagraph (2) of section 395.3025 explicitly states that section 395.3025" does not apply to records maintained at any licensed facility the primary function of which is to provide psychiatric care to its patients, or to records of treatment for any mental or emotional condition at any other licensed facility...." (emphasis added). Here, Citrus' own website describes its primary function as providing "psychiatric care" to its patients. See http://www.citrushealth.org/about . Additionally, subparagraph (4) of section 395.3025 provides: (4) Patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the patient or his or her legal *833 representative, but appropriate disclosure may be made without such consent ......

...rovision that precludes disclosure of J.B.'s psychological records. Thus, the statutes do not support Barahona's claim that she need not establish one of the enumerated exceptions in section 90.503(4) because she may compel disclosure under sections 395.3025 and 456.057....

...The state did not give either Rutherford or his lawyer notice of the subpoena. Obeying the subpoena, the hospital furnished Rutherford's records to the state. The state was thus able to review Rutherford's medical records without complying with the notice provision of subsection 395.3025(4)(d), Florida Statutes (1995), and the procedural requirements of Hunter v....

...[1] The court denied the state's request for an opportunity to comply with Hunter by demonstrating the relevancy of the records to its pending criminal investigation so that a second subpoena duces tecum could issue for the same medical records that it had already reviewed. Section 395.3025(4) states that a hospital's "patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain." Subsection 395.3025(4)(d) provides an exception to the rule of non-disclosure without the patient's 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. In Hunter v. State , the fifth district construed section 395.3025(4)(d) in conjunction with section 27.04, Florida Statutes (1993), which allows a state attorney "the process of his or her court" to summon and examine witnesses in the course of a criminal investigation....

...riminal investigation of a traffic accident. The state took the position that section 27.04 authorized the issuance of a subpoena by the clerk at the prosecutor's discretion, without the necessity of a judge's approval or notice to the patient under section 395.3025(4)(d). The fifth district rejected this argument, holding that for a state attorney's investigative subpoena for hospital records to issue, the prosecutor must first comply with the procedural requirements of section 395.3025(4)(d)....

...I, § 23, Fla. Const.; Slim-Fast Foods Co. v. Brockmeyer, 627 So.2d 104, 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (stating "that patient's privacy interests require the deletion of identifying information where non-parties' medical files are otherwise discoverable"). Section 395.3025(4)(d) is a legislative determination singling out hospital records as being entitled to protection from prying eyes. See Acosta v. Richter, 671 So.2d 149, 154 (Fla.1996) (noting that statute analogous to section 395.3025(4)(d), section 455.241(2), Florida Statutes (1995), creates a "broad and express privilege of confidentiality" as to medical records and medical condition of patient)....

...st demonstrate compliance with procedural safeguards which, "at a minimum, necessitate judicial approval prior to the state's intrusion into a person's privacy." Id. With its requirement that a court authorize a subpoena after notice to the patient, section 395.3025(4) is a legislative recognition of a category of private information entitled to procedural safeguards....

...When the cost of losing evidence is compared to the minimal benefits realized from violating the statute, then prosecutorial compliance with the statute will be likely to occur in the future. Without the threat of the exclusion of evidence, the incentive for a prosecutor to comply with section 395.3025(4)(d) is minimal....

...wing of relevance, then convenience and expediency might overwhelm the privacy interests that the statute seeks to protect. The state's proposal to the trial court___ that it be given an after-the-fact opportunity to make the requisite showing under section 395.3025 and Hunter ___ would undercut the values implemented by the statutory and constitutional provisions and discourage future compliance with them....

...5th DCA), rev. denied, 649 So.2d 233 (Fla.1994). The majority fails to acknowledge, however, that the Hunter court allowed the state to do exactly what it seeks to do by this appeal—to issue a second subpoena which comports with the requirements of section 395.3025(4)(d), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...As further evidence of the minimal privacy interests attaching to blood tests where a DUI prosecution is involved, the majority recognizes that section 316.1932(1)(c) or 316.1933, Florida Statutes, allows the taking of a person's blood sample without their consent or the due process requirements of section 395.3025(4)(d)....

...As Judge Polen rightly suggests, section 316.1932(1)(c) clearly provides that such a request for treatment by the driver is a consent to a blood alcohol test. In my mind, a consent to the test is tantamount to a consent to the test results. Hence, reading section 395.3025(4)(d) together with section 316.1932(1)(c), yields the conclusion that any failure to give notice with the subpoena request is inconsequential in light of the obvious consent to the test and its results....

...State, 639 So.2d 72 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), we deny the state's motion to certify conflict pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv). Unlike this case, there is no indication in Hunter that the state actually obtained hospital records in violation of section 395.3025(4)(d), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...The State conceded that at the first hearing it did not establish a factual basis to obtain the legal blood alcohol test results under section 316.1933, Florida Statutes (2007). However, the State contended that it had additional evidence which provided an independent basis to obtain Salle-Green’s medical records under section 395.3025(4)(d), Florida Statutes (2007)....

...3d DCA 2000) (affirming the trial court’s suppression of legal blood test results where there was no evidence that the officer, before ordering the blood draw, had probable cause to believe that the driver was under the influence of any substance at the time of the accident). Medical Blood Test Results Under Section 395.3025(4)(d) “A patient’s medical records enjoy a confidential status by virtue of the right to privacy contained in the Florida Constitution, and any attempt on the part of the government to obtain such records must first meet constitutional .muster.” State v. Johnson, 814 So.2d 390, 393 (Fla.2002). However, “[t]he right to privacy is not absolute and will yield to compelling governmental interests.” Id. Section 395.3025(4), provides exceptions to the general rule requiring patient confidentiality....

...Salle-Green argues that having failed to establish that Trooper Moseley had probable cause to obtain her blood test results, the State should be barred from having a second chance to obtain her blood test results by subpoenaing her medical records under section 395.3025(4)(d)....

...The record does not demonstrate that Trooper Moseley acted improperly. Cf. Frank v. State, 912 So.2d 329 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (holding that where an investigating police officer obtained the defendant’s medical records from the hospital eight weeks after the crash without complying with the notice requirements of section 395.3025, the improperly obtained evidence must be excluded); State v. Kutik, 914 So.2d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (holding that suppression of medical records was required where a police officer obtained the defendant’s medical blood test results but did not comply with section 395.3025 and did not request that blood be drawn and tested pursuant to section 316.1933(1))....

...under Florida law. We address only the two claims that fail: negligence per se, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A Plaintiffs allege that AvMed was negligent per se when it violated section 395.3025 of the Florida Statutes by disclosing “Plaintiffs’ health information without authorization.” Plaintiffs state that this statute was enacted “to protect the confidentiality of medical information of Florida residents ....

...her consent.” Plaintiffs contend that they are a part of the class of people the statute sought to protect and that the harm they suffered was the type of harm the statute sought to avoid, thereby concluding that AvMed was negligent per se. Florida Statute section 395.3025(4) states that “[p]atient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the patient.” This statute is contained in a chapter regulating the licensure, development, establishment, and minimum standar...

...Because AvMed is an integrated managed-care organization and not a hospital, ambulatory surgical center, or mobile surgical facility, AvMed is not subject to this statute. See Hendley v. State, 58 So. 3d 296, 298 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011) (finding that Fla. Stat. § 395.3025 only applies to licensed facilities defined in § 395.002(16) and not to pharmacies). Section 395.3025 does not purport to regulate AvMed’s behavior, and so AvMed’s failure to comply with the statute cannot serve as a basis for a negligence per se claim. B While “every contract...

...s. Likewise, with respect to Carter’s own medical records, we agree with the trial court that the police violated the medical records statute, and her medical records should be suppressed. The State failed to make any timely attempt to comply with section 395.3025(4)(d), Florida Statutes (2013), which requires notice and a subpoena before disclosing a defendant’s medical records....

Services under several specific statutes. Section 395.3025(4), F.S. (1992 Supp.), as amended by s. 19

...In August 2018, the State filed a "Motion to Request Subpoena Duces Tecum for Medical Records of Ladimir Leka." Because there was no pending criminal action against Leka, the motion was docketed as an "order to show cause" case. In the motion, the State cited sections 395.3025 and 456.057, Florida Statutes (2018), as the bases for the request for Leka's medical records....

...able founded suspicion that the material contain[s] information relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." The motion provided that the State had notified Leka that a subpoena for his medical records would be issued unless he objected, see §§ 395.3025(4)(d), 456.057(7)(a)(3); Leka then objected, necessitating a hearing. In September 2018, Leka filed a "Notice of Objection" in the show cause case....

...without requiring the State to establish a nexus between the requested records and any ongoing criminal investigation or criminal proceeding.1 I. Certiorari Standard Orders granting the State's requests for the subpoena of medical records pursuant to sections 395.3025 and 456.057 have been reviewed by petitions for writ of certiorari by this court and others....

...3d at 506 ("It has long been recognized that a trial court order permitting discovery of information that is privileged or otherwise legally protected as private causes an immediate injury that success in a postjudgment appeal is unable to fix."). Sections 395.3025 and 456.057 each represent a " 'legislative attempt to balance a patient's privacy rights against legitimate access to' the patient's medical information." See State v....

...by law, upon the issuance of a subpoena from a court of competent jurisdiction and proper notice to the patient or the patient's legal representative by the party seeking such records. § 456.057(7)(a)(3). Similarly, section 395.3025 provides, in relevant part: 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). -6-  We note that of the certiorari cases discussing a subpoena ordering production of medical records, almost all of them indicate that a criminal action had been pen...

..."[T]he control and prosecution of criminal activity is a compelling state interest" when the State has established "a clear connection between illegal activity and the person whose privacy has allegedly been invaded." Id. The State's burden of proving that "clear connection" in cases involving sections 395.3025 and 456.057 has been described as establishing the relevancy of the requested medical records to the civil or criminal action or as proving the nexus between the two....

...lied the exclusionary rule any time the state failed to comply with the statute, without regard to whether the state made a good faith effort to comply with the statute. Secondly, the trial court erroneously relied on Rutherford because it concerned section 395.3025(4), Fla....

...Langee’s office were provided to law enforcement solely by Dr. Langee’s office manager. Thompson argued below that this search violated his rights under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and sections 456.057(7) and 395.3025(4)(d), Florida Statutes (2008)....

...But the court did not make any specific findings regarding the information police obtained directly from Dr. Langee’s office. With regard to the information obtained by law enforcement from the pharmacies, this court already has determined that law enforcement does not violate either section 456.057(7) or section 395.3025(4)(d) by obtaining a person’s pharmaceutical records without a subpoena, a search warrant, or the consent of the individual....

...Tamulonis, 39 So.3d 524, 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (noting that “section 456.057 regulates health care praetitioners[ ] and [that] pharmacists and pharmacies are expressly excluded from the definition of ‘health care practitioner’ ” and stating that section 395.3025 “applies to ‘licensed facilities],’ ” a phrase which does not include pharmacies in its statutory definition (last alteration in the original)), review denied, 52 So.3d 662 (Fla.2011)....

...warrant, or prior notice of the patient, disclosure of these records by pharmacists and pharmacies to law enforcement does not implicate HIPAA. Because the search here of Thompson’s pharmacy records did not violate HIPAA or sections 456.057(7) and 395.3025(4)(d), we reverse the portion of the trial court’s order suppressing the evidence obtained from the pharmacies....

...uest that blood be drawn and tested pursuant to section 316.1933(1), Florida Statutes (2002). [2] Fourteen *485 months after the accident, the State sought a subpoena for Kutik's medical records, with notice of the request to his lawyer, pursuant to section 395.3025, Florida Statutes (2002)....

...After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion to exclude the medical records without recourse for the State to seek a future subpoena. We affirm, finding that the police made no good faith effort to comply with the subpoena and notice requirements of section 395.3025(4)(d)....

...medical records until 14 months after the accident. The trial court granted Kutik's motion to exclude his medical records. In its order, the court found that the police made no good faith effort to comply with the subpoena and notice requirements of section 395.3025(4)(d)....

...from later obtaining the medical records through a properly issued subpoena. We disagree with both contentions. We find Johnson to be dispositive. In Johnson, the court addressed the issue of the State's failure to obtain medical records pursuant to section 395.3025 and resolved the conflict between State v....

...In Johnson, the defendant was involved in an automobile accident in which the passenger died. Johnson, 814 So.2d at 391. In seeking to prosecute the defendant for DUI manslaughter, the State attempted to notify the defendant that her medical records were being subpoenaed pursuant to section 395.3025....

...After diligent effort, the State was unable to locate the defendant after her discharge from the hospital to serve her notice of its request for her medical records. The State then obtained the records pursuant to an investigative subpoena. Id. at 392. Johnson moved to suppress her medical records based upon a violation of section 395.3025(4)(d)....

...ari; however, the Florida Supreme Court quashed the Second District's decision. [6] The Florida Supreme Court concluded that the exclusionary rule applies where the State has not made a good faith effort to comply with the procedural requirements of section 395.3025....

...e a good faith effort to comply with the statute. However, we also disapprove of Manney to the extent that the Fifth District would never preclude the State from using the medical records, so long as the State subsequently complies with section *488 395.3025 by establishing reasonable suspicion through the introduction of facts that are independent of the records themselves. Id. at 394. In this case, unlike Johnson, Demeulenaere never attempted to comply with section 395.3025....

...d withdrawal. He testified that his sergeant instructed him to obtain the medical records because they would otherwise obtain only a legal blood draw two days after the accident. Although Demeulenaere may not have known the statutory requirements of section 395.3025, that ignorance does not establish good faith. Sections 395.3025 and 316.1933(2)(a) have long been Florida law, and Johnson was decided in 2002....

...igating officer obtained the results by interrogating the defendant's nurse without a subpoena or proper notice. 820 So.2d at 383-84. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding that the State later complied with the notice requirement of section 395.3025(4)(d) and that Thomas had reasonable time to object, but failed to do so....

...ubmit to the administration of the blood test. Section 316.1933(2)(a) states that "the failure of a law enforcement officer to request the withdrawal of blood shall not affect the admissibility of a test of blood withdrawn for medical purposes." [3] Section 395.3025 provides: (4) Patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain but appropriate disclosure may be made without such consent to: * * * (d) In any civil or criminal action...

...e test result. Any such notice shall be used only for the purpose of providing the law enforcement officer with reasonable cause to request the withdrawal of a blood sample pursuant to this section. (emphasis added). [6] The supreme court noted that section 395.3025 was a legislative attempt to balance patients' privacy rights against legitimate access to medical records....

...Respondent. PER CURIAM.  Rhonda Walters, Brittany Posey, and B.W., a minor, seek a writ of prohibition prohibiting the circuit court from holding a hearing on whether the State may compel production of Petitioners' medical records pursuant to section 395.3025, Florida Statutes (2022), under the circumstances involved here....

...and obtain documents utilizing subpoenas during an investigation pursuant to section 27.04, Florida Statutes (2022). However, when the State seeks a subpoena for medical records, patient privacy rights are implicated, and the State must comply with section 395.3025, which provides: (4) Patient 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...

...herwise 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, Fla....

...subpoena for the patient's medical records is allowed to issue. Id. at 74. The Florida Supreme Court has also provided guidance on the State’s ability to access medical records through its investigative powers: Section 395.3025 is a legislative attempt to balance a patient's privacy rights against legitimate access to medical records....

.... Based on the clear language of the statute, we hold that the state attorney's subpoena power under section 27.04, Florida Statutes (1997), cannot 4  override the notice requirement of section 395.3025(4)(d). State v....

...2002). Thus, while it is clear based on this Court's holding in Hunter and the Florida Supreme Court's holding in Johnson that the State may use its investigative subpoena powers to obtain medical records, these powers do not allow the State to circumvent the requirements outlined in section 395.3025(4)(d). Furthermore, in the case under consideration, the State has not filed a civil or criminal case or judicial action of any type....

...ith effort to comply with the statute. However, we also disapprove of Manney to the extent that the Fifth District would never preclude the State from using the medical records, so long as the State subsequently complies with section 395.3025 by establishing reasonable suspicion through the introduction of facts that are independent of the records themselves. Johnson, 814 So....

...properly issued subpoena. However, Patterson’s description of how the records were obtained from the hospital comports with the statutory procedure that requires the State to notify Patterson’s counsel of its intent to subpoena the records. See § 395.3025(4)(d), Florida Statutes (1995)....

...everal pharmacies. Albritton was charged with trafficking in illegal drugs and eleven counts of obtaining a controlled substance from a physician by withholding information. The trial court found that Albritton’s pharmacy records were protected by section 395.3025(4)(d), Florida Statutes (2007 & 2008). In State v. Tamulonis, 39 So.3d 524, 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), cert. denied, 52 So.3d 662 (Fla. Jan.3, 2011), however, this court determined that section 395.3025 did not apply to pharmacies....

...Julie Gallagher General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Dear Ms. Gallagher: You ask substantially the following questions: 1. If postage and sales tax are added to copying charges, are such sums added to the maximum per copy charge specified in section 395.3025 , Florida Statutes, or are they included within the maximum charge? 2. Are hospitals required to add sales tax to copies of patient records provided pursuant to section 395.3025 , Florida Statutes? In sum: 1. If postage and sales tax are added to copying charges, such sums are in addition to the per copy charge specified in section 395.3025 (1), Florida Statutes....

...Licensed facilities are not exercising the privilege of engaging in business when they are required to provide patient records to patients for a statutorily prescribed fee. Therefore, sales tax need not be imposed for providing copies of patient records pursuant to section 395.3025 (1), Florida Statutes. However, in light of the language of section 395.3025 (1), legislative clarification is suggested. Question One Section 395.3025 (1), Florida Statutes, provides: "(1) Any licensed facility shall, upon written request, and only after discharge of the patient, furnish, in a timely manner, without delays for legal review, to any person admitted therein for care a...

...ays, were capped at an amount consistent with the fees charged by the county clerk's office. In 1992, the Legislature substantially revised Chapter 395 , Florida Statutes, and, as a part of the revision, the medical records statute was renumbered as section 395.3025 , Florida Statutes....

...ld be realized by establishing copying fees which are consistent with the fees administered by the Clerk of the Circuit Court and by establishing a charge for each year of records that is requested to be searched." 4 With respect to the amendment of section 395.3025 (1), Florida Statutes, the staff analysis provides: "Section 32. Renumbers s. 395.017, F.S., related to patient and personnel records, as s. 395.3025 , F.S., to require a written request prior to the release of any patient records....

...and postage . A patient whose records are copied or searched for the purpose of continuing to receive medical care is not required to pay such charges." 5 (e.s.) The staff analysis reflects an intent that the charges for patient records pursuant to section 395.3025 , Florida Statutes, include a copying charge for paper and nonpaper documents consistent with the fees imposed by the clerk of the circuit court and may include a charge for sales tax and postage....

...Such charges imposed by the clerk pursuant to sections 28.24 (8)(a) and (9)(c), Florida Statutes, do not reflect a charge for postage. 6 Accordingly, I am of the view that if postage and sales tax are added, such sums are in addition to the per copy charge specified in section 395.3025 , Florida Statutes, for paper and nonpaper copies. Question Two As noted in Question One, section 395.3025 (1), Florida Statutes, provides in part: "The exclusive charge for copies of patient records may include sales tax and actual postage, and , except for nonpaper records which are subject to a charge not to exceed $2 as provided in s....

...ed for providing copies of public records under Chapter 119 , Florida Statutes. 13 Attorney General Opinion 86-83 considered the application of the sales tax when a statute provided for the release of public records for a statutorily prescribed fee. Section 395.3025 (1), Florida Statutes, provides for the release of patient records held by "[l]icensed facilities," i.e ., hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers, or mobile surgical facilities licensed in accordance with Chapter 395 , Florida Statutes, 14 upon payment of a statutorily prescribed fee....

...15 Accordingly, I am of the opinion that licensed facilities are not exercising the privilege of engaging in business when they are required to provide patient records to patients for a statutorily prescribed fee, and therefore, sales tax is not due. 16 However, in light of the language of section 395.3025 (1), Florida Statutes, referring to the imposition of the sales tax, legislative clarification of this issue is suggested....

...Fields of Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee. STONE, J. We affirm an order granting Cashner's motion to suppress based on the state's failure to give proper notice of its intention to issue two subpoenas duces tecum for Cashner's medical records pursuant to section 395.3025(4)(d), Florida Statutes (2000)....

...ions and issued the subpoenas. Based on the information contained in the medical records released by Cashner's doctors, the state filed one count of insurance fraud against Cashner and he was arrested. *229 The state contends that it did not violate section 395.3025(4)(d) because it did, in fact, give notice to Cashner. Section 395.3025(4)(d), Florida Statutes, reads: (4) Patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain, but appropriate disclosure may be made without such consent to: * * * (d) In any c...

...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. Id. (emphasis added). "Section 395.3025 is a legislative attempt to balance a patient's privacy rights against legitimate access to medical records." State v....

...o that this doesn't occur in the future." In suppressing the evidence, the court recognized that Cashner had made a timely objection and found that the state "failed to adequately provide notice to Defendant or counsel as required by Florida Statute 395.3025(4)(d)." The court also found that the state had obtained the records by circumventing its burden to demonstrate their relevancy....

...By depriving Cashner of the opportunity to object, the state successfully obtained the medical records it needed to prosecute him and, in the process, violated his right to privacy. See Rutherford, 707 So.2d at 1131-32. We have considered the applicability of the recent supreme court opinion recognizing that a violation of 395.3025(4)(d), in and of itself, would not mandate the exclusion of evidence where the state has demonstrated good faith....

...f showing the relevance of the records to its criminal investigation.” Ussery v. State, 654 So.2d 561, 561 (Fla. *1147 4th DCA 1995). However, the state has not met its burden of demonstrating that the blood samples are records, as contemplated by section 395.3025(4)(d), Florida Statutes (2000), or that the actual blood samples are the least intrusive means of satisfying its interest in the information....

...privileged and not discoverable because they: (1) are “peer review” records protected by Florida Statutes §§ 395.0191(8), 395.0193(7), and 766.101(5); (2) contain names of patients or other identifying information protected by Florida Statute § 395.3025; and (3) are “cre-dentialling files” protected by either or both of the statutory protections cited supra....

treatment for mental illness. Florida Statute § 395.3025(2) specifies that the disclosure of medical records

...See State v. Famiglietti, 817 So. 2d 901, 903-04 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Although, Barahona failed to raise any of the exceptions listed in section 90.503(4), she argues that she is nevertheless entitled to the records under sections 456.057 and 395.3025, Florida Statutes (2017), both of which she claims are exceptions to section 90.503. The former governs general medical records. The latter governs patient and personnel records. Based on our review of sections 395.3025, 456.057, and 90.503, and the relevant case law, we reject this argument. First, subparagraph (2) of section 395.3025 explicitly states that section 395.3025 “does not apply to records maintained at any licensed facility the primary function of which is to provide psychiatric care to its patients, or to records of treatment for any mental or emotional condition at any other licensed facility . . . .” (emphasis added). Here, Citrus’ own website describes its primary function as providing “psychiatric care” to its patients. See http://www.citrushealth.org/about. Additionally, subparagraph (4) of section 395.3025 provides: (4) Patient 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 ....

...otherwise prohibited by law provision that precludes disclosure of J.B.’s psychological records. Thus, the statutes do not support Barahona’s claim that she need not establish one of the enumerated exceptions in section 90.503(4) because she may compel disclosure under sections 395.3025 and 456.057. The case law likewise does not support Barahona’s claim....

...t now includes: (6) Clinical records relating to a Medicaid recipient shall be furnished to the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit in the Department of Legal Affairs, upon request. Chapter 2000-163, § 2, at 952, Laws of Florida, added subsection (4)(k) to section 395.3025, which we construed in ‘X Hospital”....

...October 5, 1998. On the day after the shooting, Sneed appeared at Pan American Hospital complaining of a gunshot wound. The police obtained Sneed’s medical records from the hospital without giving notice to Sneed ór his attorney, in violation of section 395.3025(4)(d), Florida Statutes (1998) 1 ....

...him. Sneed was found guilty and sentenced to thirty-five years in prisons; with a three-year minimum mandatory. On appeal, Sneed argued that the trial court erred in admitting the hospital records, where they had first been obtained in violation of section 395.3025(4)(d)....

...Johnson, 751 So.2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 767 So.2d 461 (Fla.2000). Sneed v. State, 802 So.2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). In State v. Johnson, 814 So.2d 390 (Fla.2002), the Florida Supreme Court held that hospital records obtained in violation of section 395.3025 did not have to be excluded or suppressed if the state made a good faith effort to comply with the statutory requirements....

...]] (d) In 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....

results of blood tests of appellant, pursuant to section 395.3025(4)(d), Florida Statutes (1995), for use in

...arge.... The licensed facility shall further allow any such person to examine the original records in its possession ... upon such reasonable terms as shall be imposed to assure that the records will not be damaged, destroyed, or altered. Fla. Stat. § 395.3025....

...tions") are excluded from this right of access: (2) This section does not apply to ... records of treatment for any mental or emotional condition at any other licensed facility which are governed by the provisions of s. 394.4615 [the Baker Act]. Id. § 395.3025(2)....

...THE PARTIES' POSITIONS Plaintiff the Advocacy Center contends that Defendant Bob Butterworth, as Attorney General for the State of Florida, "violates" Title II of the ADA by enforcing the statutory exemption to patients' universal right of access to all patient records. According to the Plaintiff, section 395.3025(2), Florida Statutes, is defective in that it excludes individuals with mental disabilities from all other individuals who have a legal right of access to their medical records and imposes added burdens on individuals with mental disabilities seeking access to their treatment records....

...Finally, the statutory structure enforced by the Defendant is not saved by the fundamental alteration defense because the statute creates a barrier to access that discriminates against all individuals who receive treatment for any mental or emotional condition. CONCLUSION Therefore, because section 395.3025(2), Florida Statutes, "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives" of Title II of the ADA, see Lewis, 107 F.3d at 1500, the state law is preempted by implication. Effective ten days from entry of this order, Defendant Bob Butterworth, Attorney General for the State of Florida, is permanently enjoined from enforcing section 395.3025(2), Florida Statutes, and is further enjoined from promulgating any regulation, rule, policy, procedure, practice or guideline which is based on or relies upon section 395.3025(2), Florida Statutes....

records to Edwards’ attorney, pursuant to section 395.3025(4)(d), Florida *631Statutes (Supp.1992)1.

...Florida’s Laws Protecting the Privacy of Medical Records Florida law prohibits the disclosure of confidential medical records without valid authorization. An authorization for the release of a person’s confidential medical records is valid only if made by the patient or his or her legal representative. § 395.3025(4), Fla. Stat. (2011). Section 395.3025(1), Florida Statutes (2011), provides the following guidelines for obtaining medical records: Any licensed facility shall, upon written request, and only after discharge of the patient, furnish, in a timely manner, witho...

...g such person, which records are in the possession of the licensed facility, provided the person requesting such records agrees to pay a charge. (emphasis added). Pusha’s request for Freeman’s medical records is deficient under section 395.3025(1) because it does not demonstrate that Pusha and/or Teague were legally authorized to act as Freeman’s guardian, curator, or personal representative....

...On the other hand, the enclosed authorization form to release the medical records was signed by Teague, a person not identified in the letter as a client of the firm. Because the request for Freeman’s medical records did not include a valid authorization for their release, the request failed to comply with section 395.3025(1), and Shands was prohibited from releasing the records. The protection for confidential medical records is not provided only by statute; the Florida Constitution also extends additional protections in connection with the right to privacy....