County of Riverside v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Oct 11, 1974 No. Civ. 13764Published

Before: Kaufman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the superior court's order requiring the disclosure of confidential patient records to an administrative agency was invalid because the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act does not authorize such disclosure to administrative bodies.

Issues

Whether Welfare and Institutions Code section 5328, subdivision (f) permits the disclosure of confidential patient records to an administrative agency for use in an administrative proceeding.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In our view, the subdivision contemplates use of the information or records “as necessary to the administration of justice” in some pending judicial action or proceeding.”

“Had the Legislature intended to permit disclosure to administrative agencies such as State Board it would doubtless have included a specific authorization for such disclosure.”

[480]

Opinion

KAUFMAN, J.

David P. Sorben is a licensed chiropractor. Since October 1973, Sorben has been treated on a voluntary basis for alcoholism at the Crisis and Referral Center, Riverside, California (hereinafter “Center”). Personnel of the Center made and maintain records relating to Sorben, including dates of visits, diagnosis, evaluation and treatment. These records are subject to the confidentiality provisions of section 5328 et seq., of the Welfare and Institutions Code (part of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act).

There is pending before the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners (hereinafter “State Board”) an accusation seeking the suspension or revocation of Sorben’s chiropractic license alleging violation of section 10 subdivision (b) of the Chiropractic Act of California (3 West’s Ann. Bus. & Prof. Code (1974 ed.) p. 147; 4 Deering’s Ann. Bus. & Prof. Code (1961-1973 Cum. Supp., following § 25763 at p. 277), habitual intemperance in the use of ardent spirits to such an extent as to incapacitate him for the performance of his professional duties.

State Board petitioned the Riverside Superior Court for an order directing the Custodian of Patient Records of the Center to submit all of its records pertaining to Sorben to the court for a determination by it whether the records should be disclosed to State Board for use in the pending administrative proceeding against Sorben.

On June 21, 1974, the Riverside Superior Court rendered an ex parte order pursuant to State Board’s petition, ordering Center’s custodian of patient records to deliver to the court Center’s records relating to Sorben.

This petition for an extraordinary writ

followed, and we issued a stay order and alternative writ of mandate to inquire into the validity of the superior court’s order of June 21, 1974. We have concluded that the order is invalid.

The statutory scheme is as follows: section 5328 broadly provides for confidentiality: “All information and records obtained in the course of providing services under Division 5 (commencing with Section 5000), Division 6 (commencing with Section 6000), or Division 7 (commencing with Section 7000), to either voluntary or involuntary recipients of services

County of Riverside v. Superior Court

AI Brief

KAUFMAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief