Rittenhouse

Rittenhouse v. Superior Court

Good Law
1 Cal. Rptr. 2d 595·1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 1321·235 Cal. App. 3d 1584·91 Daily Journal DAR 14185
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 19, 1991C011854California2,446 words

Opinion

Opinion

Puglia, J.

—Wilma M. Rittenhouse (petitioner) is the administrator of the estate of Albert Leonard White (Albert). Petitioner moved in the superior court to quash several deposition subpoenas issued and served by real party in interest Leland Stanford Junior University (Stanford) seeking Albert’s medical records in the hands of hospitals and physicians. The motion to quash was denied. Petitioner contends that disclosure of the records in question would violate the physician-patient and psychotherapist-patient privileges, and that the superior court erred in refusing to quash the subpoenas. (Evid. Code, §§ 990 et seq., 1010 et seq.) (Statutory references to sections of an undesignated code are to the Evidence Code.) We agree, and shall order a writ of mandate to issue.

Albert was the son of Alice Marie White (Alice), who died in 1983. In 1984 the Public Administrator of Sacramento County was appointed administrator with will annexed of Alice’s estate. The will, executed by Alice in 1962, was admitted to probate. That will established a testamentary trust, and directed the trustee to apply the income and principal to the support of Albert during his life. Upon Albert’s death any…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.