(4) Patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain, but appropriate disclosure may be made without such consent to:
~snip~
(d) In any civil or criminal action, unless otherwise prohibited by law, upon the issuance of a subpoena from a court of competent jurisdiction and proper notice by the party seeking such records to the patient or his or her legal representative.
I underlined part of section (d), since the FL court apparently didn't see it.
I am no way up to speed on this issue and have not read the opinion but, with that said, the snippett of FL which you posted said in section 4 "may" (as opposed to a word like shall or must).
Traditionally, the government does not need to seek info about criminal activity by subpoena. The Gov useds a search warrant (as in this case) based upon a sworn oath which establishes probale cause to find evidence of criminal activity.
The "may" language does not seem to preclude the use of a search warrant.
"may" here describes that disclosure "may" be made without consent "Upon the issuance of a subpeona"
ie "provided that a subpeona is issued" that disclosure may happen
jmho - INAL (he he)