Emma Gayle Weaver v. Stephen C. Myers, M.d., Respondents — Canady, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Canady, dissenting, would have affirmed the First District's conclusion that the statutory amendments authorizing optional, relevance-limited ex parte interviews with nonparty treating physicians are constitutional. He reasoned that relevant medical-information privacy is waived when a medical-malpractice claim is pursued, that the amendments impose a reasonable presuit condition rather than an unconstitutional access-to-courts burden, and that they regulate substantive legislative rights without encroaching on judicial rulemaking authority or creating a prohibited special law. Justices Polston and Lawson concurred in the dissent.