Heda v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Nov 21, 1990 No. A050282Published

Before: Strankman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A plaintiff's interest in obtaining trial preference based on a defendant's ill health does not outweigh the defendant's constitutional right to privacy regarding their medical records.

Issues

Whether Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (d) allows a plaintiff to move for trial preference based on the defendant's ill health.
Whether a defendant's constitutional right to privacy in medical records is outweighed by a plaintiff's interest in obtaining trial preference.
Whether a defendant waives their constitutional right to privacy in medical records by disclosing limited information about their health or by failing to assert privacy in initial discovery objections.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude that this need does not outweigh defendant’s interest in privacy.”

“But we conclude that plaintiff’s desire for trial preference does not outweigh defendant’s constitutional right to privacy for medical records.”

“Defendant disclosed only the fact of heart attacks and bypass surgery, not the content of communications with his doctors or medical reports.”

Opinion

STRANKMAN, J.

Petitioner, a defendant in a medical malpractice action (hereafter defendant), challenges an order requiring him to answer interrogatories about his doctors’ diagnoses and to furnish his health records to real party (the plaintiff below; hereafter plaintiff). Plaintiff needs the records to support a motion for trial preference based upon defendant’s ill health. (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (d).) We conclude that this need does not outweigh defendant’s interest in privacy.

Article I, section 1 of the California Constitution provides: “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” The zone of privacy created by this provision extends to the details of a patient’s medical history. (See

Cutter

Brownbridge

(1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 836, 842 [228 Cal.Rptr. 545];

Wood

Superior Court

(1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1138, 1147 [212 Cal.Rptr. 811];

Jones

Superior Court

(1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 534, 548-550 [174 Cal.Rptr. 148

]; Board of Medical Quality Assurance

Gherardini

(1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 669, 678-679 [156 Cal.Rptr. 55].) And this privacy right protects against invasions by private citizens as well as by the state.

(Chico Feminist Women’s Health Center

Scully

(1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 230, 242 [256 Cal.Rptr. 194], and cases there cited.) The right is not absolute, however, and may be outweighed by the legitimate interests of another party to a lawsuit. (See

Heda v. Superior Court

AI Brief

STRANKMAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief