Castellano v. Halpern
A general surgeon sued a competing plastic surgeon for defamation and tortious interference over a letter opposing a hospital's proposal to create a cosmetic surgery practice area; the trial court found all requested discovery privileged under sections 395.0191(8), 395.0193(8), and 766.101(5). The Second District granted certiorari and quashed the orders, holding that the plain language of the peer-review/credentialing confidentiality statutes limits the privilege to civil actions arising out of matters actually subject to evaluation and review by the relevant board or committee, and does not reach a suit arising from a proposal to create a new clinical practice area.
Key facts
- General surgeon Castellano sued competing plastic surgeon Halpern for defamation and tortious interference based on a letter Halpern wrote opposing a hospital's proposal to create a cosmetic surgery practice area.
- The trial court granted Halpern's discovery objections and withheld all requested discovery under hospital peer-review and credentialing confidentiality statutes (sections 395.0191(8), 395.0193(8), and 766.101(5)).
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This is a useful precedent for litigants confronting blanket claims of hospital peer-review and credentialing confidentiality: the Second District cabins sections 395.0191(8), 395.0193(8), and 766.101(5) to actions… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.