X hits on this document

49 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

10 / 27

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

(Fla. 1945).

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

381.028

invalid

in

its

entirety. 1

Yet,

a

careful

analysis

of

section

381.028

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."

5

Document info
Document views49
Page views49
Page last viewedSat Dec 03 03:22:08 UTC 2016
Pages27
Paragraphs513
Words5618

Comments