Brillantes

Brillantes v. Superior Court

Caution
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 1114·51 Cal. App. 4th 323·58 Cal. Rptr. 2d 770·96 Daily Journal DAR 14264·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8661
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 27, 1996B100434California8,299 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kitching, J.

In this action for mandamus relief, we consider whether a physician suspected of Medi-Cal fraud should be afforded, as a matter of right under People v. Superior Court (Bauman & Rose) (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1757 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 734 ] (hereafter Bauman & Rose), a Penal Code section 1524, subdivision (c) hearing to determine the applicability of the physician-patient privilege to patient files seized from his office pursuant to a search warrant.

Bauman & Rose recognized the trial court’s authority to hold an in camera hearing to determine the validity of the assertion of the attorney-client privilege by an attorney regarding documents seized from his office, even though the attorney was suspected of criminal activity. Bauman & Rose, however, did not determine the trial court was required to provide such an in camera hearing.

Under the facts of this case, we decline to apply Bauman & Rose to a physician suspected of Medi-Cal fraud and decide that the trial court was not required to provide him an in camera hearing and file review. We find that a trial court has the inherent authority to determine the applicability of the physician-patient privilege, and also has the…

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.