Areas of Law: Health Law, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury
Florida Constitution Article X, section 25 (Amendment 7), adopted by citizen initiative in 2004, provides patients “a right to have access to any records made or received in the course of business by a health care facility or provider relating to any adverse medical incident.” “Adverse medical incident” includes “any other act, neglect, or default of a health care facility or health care provider that caused or could have caused injury to or death of a patient.” Amendment 7 gives medical malpractice plaintiffs access to any adverse medical incident record, including incidents involving other patients [occurrence reports], created by health care providers. The Federal Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act, however, creates a voluntary, confidential, non-punitive system of data sharing of health care errors for the purpose of improving medical care and patient safety, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21(6), and establishes a protected legal environment in which providers can share data “both within and across state lines, without the threat that the information will be used against [them].” The Supreme Court of Florida reversed a holding that Amendment 7 was preempted. The Federal Act was never intended as a shield to the production of documents required by Amendment 7. The health care provider or facility cannot shield documents not privileged under state law by virtue of its unilateral decision of where to place the documents under the federal voluntary reporting system.
“You know how you know you’re in trouble with Justice Sotomayor? She says, ‘I’m confused, here.’ And she ain’t – she’s never confused.”
Keep in mind that any audio I record like this, unless it is clearly an interview or some other specific record of an event ii is always for me and me only –the ultimate form of talking to myself – but that lack of self-editing also makes it, at times, humorous, so I figure maybe I’ll start sticking some of it up. It’s not like it’s going to get a lot of listens, but it does, however, preserve it to some extent.
I then ramble into the greatness of David C. Frederick’s arguments, Justice Breyer’s ability to go right to the heart of an issue, and cut if off after pointing to how all this added up to Justice Thomas reading an opinion from the bench. Although admittedly in a far less sensical way than expressed here. (It’s more fun via the audio, however.)
*Just one post script – it is completely nonsensicalthat nonsensical is a word but that sensical is not, so fuck that – just one more system to buck.)