provision. Thus, the Legislature is permitted to enact a statute clarifying and
supplementing a constitutional amendment, providing there is no conflict between
the two. It is only when statutory provisions "collide with provisions of the
Constitution the statute must give way." Henderson v. State, 20 So. 2d 649, 651
Statutes come before the courts with a presumption of constitutionality.
Dept. of Legal Affairs v. Sanford-Orlando Kennel Club, Inc., 434 So. 2d 879, 881
(Fla. 1983). Moreover, it is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that, if at
all possible, a statute should be construed to be constitutional. Sunset Harbour
Condo Assn. v. Robbins, 914 So. 2d 925, 929 (Fla. 2005).
While not explicitly saying so, the court below apparently held section
demonstrates that its provisions properly assist in carrying out the purpose of
Amendment 7. Thus, the statute provides meaningful definitions of the words
"agency," "department," "health care provider," "health care facility," "identity,"
"privacy restrictions imposed by federal law," and "representative of the patient,"
that are not covered in the Amendment itself. The statute specifies how a request
under Amendment 7 for the production of records would be submitted; specifies
the charges which may be made for the production of the records; and specifies
1 The court opined that "we are not much impressed or persuaded by the legislative interpretation of Amendment 7 pronounced in section 381.028."