Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1983

Marion County Hospital District v. Akins

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided June 17, 1983 · Booth, Mills, Shivers

435 So. 2d 272; 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19709 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Samantha Helfrich, individually and etc. v. City of Jacksonville and the Board of etc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)
Samantha Helfrich, individually and etc. v. City of Jacksonville and the Board of etc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)
Samantha Helfrich, individually and etc. v. City of Jacksonville and the Board of etc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)
Apthorp v. Detzner (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)
Pagan v. SARASOTA COUNTY PUBLIC HOSP. BD. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)
Orchid Island Properties v. Wg Mills (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)
Pagan v. Sarasota County Public Hospital Board (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)
Walker v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from the order of the deputy commissioner compel*273ling production of hospital records, wherein the parties have sought to present to this court for resolution the effect of Section 395.017(3), Florida Statutes, on the power of the deputy to subpoena hospital records pursuant to Section 440.33, Florida Statutes. We treat the appeal as petition for writ of certiorari.

After oral argument,1 and upon careful consideration of the records and briefs before us, we find that the issue sought to be presented is moot since, under the facts of this particular case, claimant has waived the right to assert confidentiality under Section 395.017(3), by agreeing with the position of the' employer/carrier that the records were properly subject to subpoena issued by the deputy. Thus, although claimant did not sign a written consent form, the privilege to assert confidentiality under the statute, being personal to the claimant, has been waived.

It is a long-standing rule of appellate jurisprudence that the court will not undertake to resolve issues which, though of interest to the bench and bar, are not dispositive of the particular case before the court. Accordingly, we hold that the deputy, in issuing subpoena duces tecum and denying the hospital’s motion to quash, modify or limit that subpoena, did not violate essential requirements of law. Petition for writ of certiorari is denied.

MILLS, BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.

. Counsel for claimant, and for the amicus curiae, although filing briefs, were not present at oral argument and did not seek to avail themselves of opportunity to present oral argument to the court.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.