Legal Opinion

Robert Scott Santana v. City of Tallahassee

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided July 13, 2016No. 1D16-1324Published

1Per curiam

In this workers’ compensation proceeding, the claimant petitions for. certiora-ri review of an order (hereafter “the challenged order”) compelling his psychologist, Dr. Hudson, to testify at a deposition. The claimant argues that the challenged order departs from the essential requirements of law and will result in irreparable harm because Dr. Hudson will be required to disclose information that is protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege in section 90.503, Florida Statutes. However, we agree with the respondent that the claimant misconstrues the challenged order, which on its face,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Rojas v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 1994
  2. Elms v. Castle Constructors Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API