Brown

Brown v. Mortensen

Good Law
105 Cal. Rptr. 3d 462·181 Cal. App. 4th 789
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 29, 2010B199793California3,436 words

Opinion

Opinion

Chaney, J.

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS OPINION IS DEPUBLISHED UPON GRANTING OF PETITION FOR REVIEW. THE OPINION APPEARS BELOW WITH A GRAY BACKGROUND.]

[EDITORS' NOTE: TEXT NOT CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION APPEARS WITH GRAY BACKGROUND BELOW.] [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] OPINION

Appellants Robert A. Brown and Susana Brown, as individuals and as guardians ad litem of their two minor children, sued Stewart Mortensen and others for allegedly disclosing the Browns' and their minor children's confidential medical information in violation of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA) (Civ. Code, § 56 et seq.). 1 The operative complaint is the Browns' fourth amended complaint and the only causes of action before us are the third and fourth causes of action against Mortensen. In ruling on Mortensen's demurrer, the trial court found the third and fourth causes of action impermissibly vague and therefore sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. The Browns chose not to amend their complaint further. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the third and fourth causes of action with prejudice.

We…

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.