Florida Supreme Court: Federal PSQIA Does Not Pre-empt State's Constitution

by Holland & Knight LLP
Contact

Holland & Knight LLP

HIGHLIGHTS:

  • The Florida Supreme Court has held that the federal Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act (PSQIA) is not and was never intended to be a shield to prevent the production of documents required under Florida's Constitution.
  • In Charles v. Southern Baptist Hospital of Florida, Inc., the state's high court further held that Article X, Section 25, of the Florida Constitution (Amendment 7) is neither expressly nor impliedly pre-empted by the PSQIA.
  • As such, adverse medical incident reports produced in conformity with state law and requested by patients under Amendment 7 cannot be classified as confidential and privileged "patient safety work product" under the PSQIA.

In Charles v. Southern Baptist Hospital of Florida, Inc., published on Jan. 31, 2017, the Florida Supreme Court held that the federal Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act (PSQIA) is not and was never intended to be a shield to prevent the production of documents required under Florida's Constitution.

The state's high court further held that Article X, Section 25, of the Florida Constitution (Amendment 7) is neither expressly nor impliedly pre-empted by the PSQIA. Therefore, reports and records generated under the federal law can still be discoverable in Florida.

Legislative Background

In November 2004, Florida voters approved Amendment 7, which became Article X, Section 25, of the Florida Constitution. Amendment 7 provides "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." According to the Florida Supreme Court in Florida Hospital Waterman, Inc. v. Buster, decided in 2008, Amendment 7's clear purpose was to do away with existing restrictions on a patient's right to access a medical provider's history of adverse medical incidents and to provide a clear path to obtain those records. Amendment 7 effectively did away with the Florida statutes restricting access to such records.

In effect, Amendment 7 created a right for patients to know about adverse medical incidents that previously existed and removed the cloak of privilege and confidentiality from records that fell under the ambit of Amendment 7. In Baldwin v. Shands Teaching Hosp. and Clinics, Inc., the First District Court of Appeal stated that "[t]he Florida Supreme Court has recognized that this popularly adopted amendment affects, or even abrogates, statutes that previously exempted records of investigations, proceedings, and records of peer review panels from discovery in civil or administrative actions."1

A year after the adoption of Amendment 7, the U.S. Congress passed the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 (PSQIA). The passing of the PSQIA followed the 1999 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. In the report, the IOM estimated that at least 44,000 people and potentially as many as 98,000 people die in U.S. hospitals each year as a result of preventable medical errors. The IOM report recommended that legislation be passed to foster the development of a reporting system through which medical errors could be identified, analyzed and utilized to prevent further medical errors.2 Through passage of the Act and its privileges, Congress sought to "facilitate an environment in which health care providers are able to discuss errors openly and learn from them."3

PSQIA was intended to replace a "culture of blame" and punishment with a "culture of safety" that emphasizes communication and cooperation.4 PSQIA creates a voluntary, confidential, non-punitive system of data sharing of healthcare errors for the purpose of improving the quality of medical care and patient safety. PSQIA envisions that each participating provider or member would establish a patient safety evaluation system (PSE system) in which relevant information would be collected, managed and analyzed.5 After the information is collected in the PSE system, the provider would forward it to its patient safety organization (PSO), which serves to collect and analyze the data and provide feedback and recommendations to providers on ways to improve patient safety and quality of care.6 Information reported to PSOs would also be shared with a central clearing house, the Network of Patient Safety Databases, which aggregates the data and makes it available to providers as an "evidence-based management resource."7

To incentivize participation, a protected legal environment was created in which providers would be comfortable sharing data both within and across state lines "without the threat of information being used against [them]."8 Privilege and confidentiality protections attach to the shared information, termed "patient safety work product" (PSWP) to "encourage providers to share this information without fear of liability[.]"9 The protections are "the foundation to furthering the overall goal of the statute to develop a national system for analyzing and learning from patient safety events."10

Case Background

In Charles v. Southern Baptist Hospital of Florida, Inc., the Florida Supreme Court examined the important constitutional issue regarding whether reports that patients in Florida have a constitutional right to access under Amendment 7 are privileged and confidential under the PSQIA.11 In this case, Jean Charles Jr., initiated a medical malpractice action as next friend of his sister, who had suffered a neurological injury. During the discovery phase of the case, Charles requested documents pursuant to Amendment 7. Specifically, Charles requested documents that were 1) related to adverse medical incidents, and 2) either related to any physician who worked for Southern Baptist Hospital of Florida (Southern Baptist) or arising from care and treatment rendered by Southern Baptist. In response to Charles' request, Southern Baptist produced certain documents and objected to producing other documents, primarily occurrence reports, claiming privilege under the PSQIA.

Charles moved to compel production of the documents that Southern Baptist claimed were privileged. He argued that the PSQIA protects documents created only for the purpose of submission to a PSO and that the subject documents did not constitute PSWP because they were collected or maintained to comply with state law. In a series of three orders, the trial court agreed with Charles and reasoned that the subject documents were not PSWP because they were collected or maintained for a purpose other than submission to a PSO (i.e., there was dual purpose). Consequently, the trial court held that "all reports of adverse medical incidents, as defined by Amendment 7 which are created, or maintained pursuant to any statutory ... requirements are not protected from discovery under [the PSQIA]."

First District Court of Appeal

In response to the unfavorable trial court rulings, Southern Baptist filed a petition for writ of certiorari in Florida's First District Court of Appeal. The First District granted the petition and quashed the three trial court orders. It opined that under the plain language of the PSQIA, the subject documents were PSWP because the documents were placed into a PSE system for reporting to a PSO and did not exist outside the PSE system. The First District noted that the "documents at issue clearly meet the [PSQIA's] definition of PSWP." In addition, the First District opined that the PSQIA expressly and impliedly pre-empts Amendment 7 under the Supremacy Clause.

Charles appealed the First District's decision. After the parties fully briefed the case before the Florida Supreme Court and the day before oral arguments, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal. The Florida Supreme Court rejected the stipulation, reasoning that the case involved an issue of statewide importance and that the First District's holding that federal law pre-empted Amendment 7 rendered it invalid.

Florida Supreme Court Opinion

The Florida Supreme Court examined the language of the PSQIA and whether it expressly or impliedly pre-empts Amendment 7.

The state's high court noted that the First District's reading of the PSQIA was in error because it failed to consider the statute as a whole. The First District failed to consider the "numerous exceptions and limitations placed on the PSQIA." For example, although the PSQIA generally states that documents placed into a PSE system that do not exist outside the system are privileged and confidential work product, the PSQIA also makes clear that its provisions shall not be construed to limit "the discovery of or admissibility of information described in this subparagraph in a criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding," or "a provider's recordkeeping obligation with respect to information described in this subparagraph under Federal, State, or local law."12

The Florida Supreme Court opined that the subject documents fit squarely within the recordkeeping obligations under state law. In fact, the Florida Supreme Court held that records do not become PSWP simply because they are placed in a PSE system or submitted to a PSO, because providers have an independent obligation under Florida law to create and maintain them. As such, adverse medical incident reports produced in conformity with state law and requested by patients under Amendment 7 cannot be classified as confidential and privileged PSWP under the PSQIA. Moreover, the Florida Supreme Court held that the PSQIA neither expressly nor impliedly pre-empted Amendment 7. 
   

 

 

 

Notes

1 45 So. 3d 118, 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

2 See S. Rep. No. 108–196, at 3–4 (2003); H.R. Rep. No. 109–197, at 9 (2005).

3 H.R. Rep. No. 109–197, at 9 (2005); see also Patient Safety and Quality Improvement, 73 Fed. Reg. 8,112, 8,113 (proposed Feb. 12, 2008).

4 See S. Rep. No. 108–196, at 2 (2003); 73 Fed. Reg. at 70,749.

5 42 U.S.C. §299b–21(6).

6 See 42 U.S.C. §299b–24; 73 Fed. Reg. at 70,733.

7 See 42 U.S.C. §299b–23.

8 Id.

9 73 Fed. Reg. at 70,732; 42 U.S.C. §299b–22(a)–(b).

10 73 Fed. Reg. at 70,741.

11 No. SC15-2180, 2017 WL 411333 (Fla. Jan. 31, 2017).

12 42 U.S.C. §299b-21(7)(B)(iii).

Written by:

Holland & Knight LLP
Contact
more
less

Holland & Knight LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.