X hits on this document

58 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

23 / 27

Under these governing principles, Amendment 7 must be construed as

prospective only. First and foremost, the text of the Amendment itself, as well as

its supporting ballot summary and other materials, give no indication that it is to be

applied retroactively. It makes no difference whether or not the Amendment is

self-executing. Without any clear indication of retroactivity in the text of the

Amendment or its ballot summary, it is impossible to conclude that retroactive

application was intended.

Even if Amendment 7 could be read to express a retroactive intent, it would

still have to be applied prospectively because a retroactive application would

impair vested substantive rights. The records in question—adverse incident reports,

peer review materials, and the like—were created by those who participated under

a "settled expectation" that the documents would be exempt from disclosure to

persons other than those necessary to accomplish the peer review and regulatory

process. Florida law expressly guarantees confidentiality of peer review materials,

adverse incident reports, and quality assurance materials. See §§ 381.0055,

381.0273, 395.0193(7), 395.0193(8), 766.1016(2), 766.1016(3) and 766.101(5),

Fla. Stat. (2004). The law created a clear vested substantive right of confidentiality,

which cannot be infringed through a retroactive application of Amendment 7.

Allowing retrospective access to previously created records will potentially

allow physicians access to old peer review records to find out who had complained

18

Document info
Document views58
Page views58
Page last viewedMon Dec 05 14:46:23 UTC 2016
Pages27
Paragraphs513
Words5618

Comments