Kizer

The Director of the Department of Health Services appeals from the denial of his petition to compel production of documents pursuant to administrative subpoena. (Gov. Code, §§ 11186-11188.) 1 The subpoena was issued in connection with an investigation of possible health hazards posed by the Casmalia Resources Class I Hazardous Waste Facility. 2 2 It ordered an attorney representing a group of Casmalia residents in a civil action against the waste facility to produce a copy of a medical study of the health effects on persons living near the facility, which study had been commissioned by the attorney’s law firm. The superior court ruled the health effects study was protected by the physician-patient privilege, the “attorney work product privilege,” 3 and the right to privacy.

Appellant contends that the physician-patient privilege was waived because the filing of the suit against the waste facility put in issue the resi *436 dents’ physical condition, and that the physician-patient privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and the right to privacy were waived because information concerning the results of the health study was released to a newspaper. For the reasons…

I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the trial court on the ground that compelled disclosure of the medical records in question violates the Casmalia residents’ right to privacy.

The majority finds no support for this privacy argument. According to the majority, “the record does not disclose whether the study refers to individually identifiable medical records.” As I read the record, the study is based on medical records which will necessarily be individually identifiable.

The subpoena states that respondent possesses “test results, medical records, analyses and other documents” which are pertinent to the department’s investigation of the Casmalia site, based on the health study of Casmalia residents. Among the specifically requested items are “[a]ny and all medical data, test results, analyses and other records generated as part of the health study conducted by Jan Schienle, including the names of the participants.” (Italics added.)

Both the June 8, 1986, Los Angeles Times article referred to in the majority opinion, and the testimony of Dr. Du Coffe at the June 12 hearing, show that the basis of the study was (1) a questionnaire to Casmalia residents regarding their medical…

(1) The Director of the Department of Health Services appeals from the denial of his petition to compel production of documents pursuant to administrative subpoena. (Gov. Code, §§ 11186-11188.) [1] The subpoena was issued in connection with an investigation of possible health hazards posed by the Casmalia Resources Class I Hazardous Waste Facility. [2] It ordered an attorney representing a group of Casmalia residents in a civil action against the waste facility to produce a copy of a medical study of the health effects on persons living near the facility, which study had been commissioned by the attorney's law firm. (2) (See fn. 3.) The superior court ruled the health effects study was protected by the physician-patient privilege, the "attorney work product privilege," [3] and the right to privacy.

Appellant contends that the physician-patient privilege was waived because the filing of the suit against the waste facility put in issue the residents' physical condition, and that the physician-patient privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and the right to privacy were waived because information concerning the results of the health study was released to…