Akerman Sent erfitt, Akerman Se nterfitt LLP, Attor neys at Law
akerman.com | D isclaimer
Florida Supreme Court Issues Opinion Broadly Interpreting Scope
of Amendment 7
January 13, 2012
By Kirk Davis and Elizabeth Hodge
The Florida Supreme Court issued its opini on in West Florida Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. See. Of
greatest importance is the broad readi ng the Court gives to Amendment 7 in finding that:
1. a blank application for medical staff privil eges is a record of an adverse medical incident and therefore
not protected from discovery under secti ons 766.101(5) and 395.0191(8) and is discoverable under
Amendment 7,
2. section 381.028(7)(b)1, Fl orida Statutes, is invalid because the Am endment 7 disclosure
requirements are not limited to only inci dent reports such as Code 15 reports and AHCA annual reports
listed in sections 395.0197(5) and (7) (the hospit al risk management statute), and
3. the federal Health Care Quality Improv ement Act ("HCQIA") does not preempt Amendment 7 because
HCQIA and Amendment 7 each address different concerns and do not confli ct with each other.
As a result of this opinion, the range of documents and types of "adv erse incidents" subject to disclosure
under Amendment 7 is broader than the Code 15 reports and annual reports and "sev ere injuries"
described in sections 395.0197(5) and (7) and i ncludes documents such as blank applications for medical
staff privileges.
West Florida Hospital was sued for the negligent grant of medical staff privileges to two physicians. The
plaintiff sought discovery of the blank application for privileges. The Court said that only a compl eted
application which contains inf ormation necessary to the credentialing process is a document considered
by a hospital in its decision-making process and therefore prot ected by sections 766.101(5) and
395.1091(8). While the protecti ons of sections 766.101(5) and 395.1091(8), which gov ern hospital peer
review and credentialing processes respect ively, apply to any document considered by the committ ee or
board as part of its decision-making process, a blank appli cation contains no information and theref ore is
not a document considered by a hospital committee or board i n its decision-making process and therefore
is not privileged under the credentiali ng statutes.
In its broadening interpretation of Amendment 7, the Court said that even if a blank application fall s within
the parameters of sections 766.101(5) and 395.1091( 8), Amendment 7 requires its disclosure because in
See's action for negligent credentiali ng, the blank application is a record of an adverse medical incident .
The Court said that Amendment 7's definition of "adv erse medical incidents" includes "medical
negligence, intenti onal misconduct, and any other act , neglect, or default of a health care facility or health
care provider that caused or could have caused inj ury or death of a patient. (Emphasis added.)" The
Court said that part of the conduct or act by the hospital that led t o the alleged negligent grant of medical
staff privileges to the physicians are the questi ons that the hospital posed on its application for m edical
staff privileges. If the questions asked by the hospi tal on its application for staff privil eges failed to lead to
a proper inquiry into the qualificati ons of the physicians, which in turn led to the grant of privileges to the
