Shaddox

Shaddox v. Bertani

Good Law
110 Cal. App. 4th 1406·2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 808·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1167·2003 Daily Journal DAR 8507·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6810
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 30, 2003A097480California5,182 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kay, J.

The Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Civ. Code, § 56 et seq., hereafter CMIA) establishes the general principle that a patient’s medical information shall not be disclosed by health care providers, subject to a number of mandatory and permissive exceptions. One of the enumerated permissive exceptions allows release of medical information “when the disclosure is otherwise specifically authorized by law” and uses, as an example, a voluntary report to the Food and Drug Administration. (§ 56.10, subd. (c)(14), hereafter subdivision (c)(14).) The issue presented here is whether a dentist treating a police officer who he suspects may have a problem with prescription drugs, can, without violating the CMIA, advise the officer’s department of that suspicion.

We agree with the trial court that the dentist’s communication with the officer’s superiors was covered by subdivision (c)(14), and therefore not actionable. As will be explained, the dentist’s communication is no different from the example used by the Legislature when it enacted subdivision (c)(14). We also agree with the trial court that a person enjoys absolute statutory immunity under section 47, subdivision…

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.