X hits on this document

64 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

15 / 27

to

be

disclosed.

A

peer

review

finding

that

a

previously

reported

"adverse

incident" was not the result of negligence could hardly be considered to be an

"adverse medical incident" as defined by Amendment 7. To conclude otherwise

would also be inconsistent with any logical construction of the Amendment.

The first portion of paragraph (c)(3) of Amendment 7 defining "adverse

medical incident" clearly contemplates some sort of medical error. By the latter

use of the term "including, but not limited to," anything that follows must

necessarily still be within the scope of the earlier language. In other words, any

language following those words should not be construed more broadly than the

language which preceded them. In any event, this dichotomy renders paragraph

(c)(3) at least ambiguous, and presents another reason why the Legislature was

within its rights to construe to the term "adverse medical incident" in its

implementing legislation by defining it in the manner it had always been

understood by the hospitals. See Agency for Health Care Association v. Associated

Industries of Florida, 678 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 1996) ("This Court is deferential when

reviewing a legislative determination as to the meaning of a constitutional

provision.").

Finally, Florida Hospital Association emphatically sserts, consistent with

the wording of section 381.028(6), that Amendment 7 does not repeal or otherwise

alter any existing restrictions on the "admissibility of records relating to adverse

10

Document info
Document views64
Page views64
Page last viewedSat Dec 10 02:45:21 UTC 2016
Pages27
Paragraphs513
Words5618

Comments