CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 2492, 2006 WL 437506
...It could *533 require a licensee to submit medical reports, §
322.221(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2003), but then it was to take the action it deemed appropriate, section
322.221(3). It is not a rubber stamp to a treating physician. Duckworth’s principal contention was that section
322.125(4) provides that reports received or made by the board may not be divulged to anyone but the driver or applicant, or used as evidence in any trial, and are exempt from the public records provisions of section
119.07(1), except that th...
...Tandem Health Care of Fla., Inc.,
862 So.2d 745, 747-48 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing order allowing ex parte disclosure of privileged medical information from patient’s treating physicians, in patient’s action against rehabilitation clinic). Clearly, section
322.125(4) makes confidential the records that the order on review would allow the state to obtain....
...r free of seizures). Nevertheless, the state’s investigating a licensee’s possible commission of fraud with respect to such medical reports does not appear to be an exception to the confidentiality provisions on which Duck-worth relies, sections
322.125(4) and
322.126(4). Section
322.125(4), Florida Statutes, provides as follows: *534 Reports received or made by the board or its members for the purpose of assisting the department in determining whether a person is qualified to be licensed are for the confidential use...
...1), except that the reports may be admitted in proceedings under § .322.271 or §
322.31. Any person conducting an examination pursuant to this section may be compelled to testify concerning his or her observations and findings in such proceedings. §
322.125(4), Fla....
...tes that effectuate a right to privacy in medical records do not apply to search warrants. Limbaugh,
887 So.2d at 393-94 . But he argues that the legislature afforded extra protection, beyond that afforded under the subpoena statutes, under sections
322.125 and
322.126....
...However, that is not the case here. The state did not seek a search warrant and we express no opinion as to the propriety of it doing so. The state urges that the statutes be read simply as precluding use of the reports in question as evidence. See § 322.125(4) (stating “Reports received or made by the board or its members for the purpose of assisting the department in determining whether a person is qualified to be licensed ......
...used as evidence in any trial”) (emphasis added); §
322.126(4) (stating “No report forwarded under the provisions of this section shall be used as evidence in any civil or criminal trial or in any court proceeding.”) (emphasis added). Such a reading, however, ignores the fact that section
322.125(4) specifically precludes divulging these matters “to any person except the licensed driver or applicant” (emphasis added), the sole exception being for administrative proceedings under sections
322.271 or
322.31 (concerning administrative license suspension and appeal). We conclude, in the face of this clear statutory language, that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in granting the state’s motion. Here, the unambiguous language of section
322.125(4) furnishes the clearly established law....
...Clearly, the legislature knows how to except subpoenas issued by a court, after notice and an opportunity to be heard, from non-disclosure provisions. The provision at issue in this case includes no such exception. Because the trial court’s order contravenes the unambiguous language of section 322.125(4), we grant the petition and quash the order on review....
