Marcus v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Jun 9, 1971 No. Civ. 38068Published

Before: Files

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a discovery order requiring a physician to disclose the names and addresses of other patients who underwent the same medical procedure as the plaintiff violates the physician-patient privilege.

Issues

Whether a discovery order requiring a physician to disclose the identities of other patients who received specific medical tests violates the physician-patient privilege.

Disposition. Peremptory writ issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If Dr. Marcus is required to list persons receiving such tests as required by the court’s order, he necessarily reveals this confidential information.”

“In the case at bench it is not merely the disclosure of the name and address, but the joining of that information with the limitation in the question that these were patients who had received the specified tests.”

Opinion

FILES, P. J.

Petitioners here are a doctor of medicine and a hospital who are defendants in a malpractice action brought against them in the superior court. They ask us to set aside a discovery order upon the ground that it violates the physician-patient privilege. We have concluded that the order is improper, that the issue is of some importance not so much to the parties as to third persons whose privacy is at stake, that an appeal would afford no remedy at all, and that a writ of prohibition is under the circumstances appropriate relief. (See

Oceanside Union School Dist.

Superior Court

(1962) 58 Cal.2d 180, 185 [23 Cal.Rptr. 375, 373 P.2d 439].)

The parties will be referred to by their alignment in the superior court.

Plaintiff (real party in interest here) is seeking to recover damages from defendants for injuries allegedly sustained by him when the defendants performed various tests upon him. By deposition, interrogatories and a motion to produce documents, plaintiff has sought to force disclosure of the names and addresses of other persons to whom defendants gave angiographic testing. Defendants sought protective orders. After a hearing the superior court made the following order dated February 26, 1971:

“Plaintiff’s Motion to Produce is denied and Defendants’ Motion for a

[24]

Protective Order and to quash is granted, except that Defendants Dr. Marcus and Cedars of Lebanon—Mount Sinai Hospitals are hereby ordered to disclose to plaintiff, by letter of their counsel, or otherwise, and within ten days of receipt of notice of this Order from Plaintiff, the names and addresses of the eight patients of Dr. Marcus receiving the same type of tests as Plaintiff, next prior to the angiogram of Plaintiff, and the names and addresses of the eight patients of Dr. Marcus receiving the same type of tests as Plaintiff, next subsequent to the angiogram of Plaintiff, including (or, if not included, then also) the names and addresses of the two patients of Dr. Marcus who developed complications from said testing.”

Marcus v. Superior Court

AI Brief

FILES, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief