Skip to Content

New Work Product Privilege Opinion

On April 15, 2009, the Fourth District Court of Appeal released its opinion in Neighborhood Health Partnership. Inc. v. Peter F. Merkle, M.D., P.A., No.4D08-3213 (April 15, 2009) (Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing), which addresses the work product privilege. In Merkle, a Health Maintenance Organization (“HMO”) sought to avoid production of certain documents on the basis that they constituted protected work product. The documents at issue, prepared by the HMO and its consulting firm, analyzed how the HMO should respond to an inquiry by the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) with regard to how the HMO’s policy of reimbursing providers of emergency medical services complied with section 641.513(5), Florida Statutes. The documents contained discussions as to how the HMO arrived at the rates they were paying non-contract providers. Ultimately, AHCA determined it had no jurisdiction over the matter. Following AHCA’s decision, non-contract providers brought a class action suit against the HMO, arguing they were entitled to a higher rate reimbursement. The providers requested the production of the documents at issue.

The Fourth District denied the HMO’s petition for certiorari, agreeing with the trial court's determination, following in camera review, that the documents were not protected work product. The Fourth District reasoned that the HMO misconstrued Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1994), in that Deason does not support the proposition that “a mere routine request for information by a regulatory agency justifies presumptive work product protection for any document on which the regulated industry company’s lawyer has cast an eye,” because regulatory disciplinary litigation was well under way when the documents at issue in Deason were generated. In contrast, the Fourth District found that when the HMO’s documents where created, AHCA was not considering an adversarial disciplinary proceeding on the matter. The court found that the documents were prepared in the ordinary course of business and there was no basis for the HMO to anticipate adverse agency action.

The Fourth District went on to clarify its decision in Cotton States Mutual Insurance Co., 444 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), noting that it was not intended to impose a heightened standard for claims of work product protection. The court explained that Cotton States concerned a claim of bad faith by an insured against the insurance carrier and that the carrier had no basis to assert a privilege of nondisclosure as to the claim file at issue. Nevertheless, the Fourth District also recognized that “claims of privilege or protection by corporations are generally subject to stricter scrutiny.” (citing Deason, 632 So. 2d at 1383) (recognizing that “to minimize the threat of corporations cloaking information with the attorney-client privilege in order to avoid discovery, claims of the privilege in the corporate context will be subjected to a heightened level of scrutiny”).

The Fourth District concluded by stating that the work product privilege was never meant to apply to ordinary, routine, business-as-usual communications and at a minimum “requires that a specific litigation matter can be reasonably anticipated as a result of an occurrence or circumstance - - such as an act giving rise to the accrual of a cause of action. It was never designed to protect the normal business activities of an industry against general regulatory oversight and enforcement - - outside of specific disciplinary action by the agency.”

Related Practices
Appellate & Trial Support
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.


The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.