Pollock

In Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 810 , 647 P.2d 86 ], our Supreme Court held that, in an action alleging an insurer’s bad faith refusal to pay benefits under an accident policy, the plaintiff was entitled to discover the names and addresses of other claimants whose accident claims had been adjusted by the person who had adjusted the plaintiffs claim. In the case now before us, the trial court held that, in an action alleging an insurer’s bad faith termination of benefits under a disability policy, the plaintiff is not entitled to discover the names and addresses of other claimants whose psychiatric disability claims had been denied during a four-year period. We agree with the trial court that where, as here, the disclosure of a claimant’s identity necessarily discloses the claimant’s psychiatric condition, the claimant’s psychotherapist-patient privilege trumps the plaintiffs right to use this particular form of discovery. For this reason, we deny the plaintiffs petition for a writ of mandate.

Background

Mark Pollock sued Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company for breach of contract and breach of the implied…

I agree with the majority opinion save for the first paragraph of part C in which it suggests an alternative approach to contacting claimants who were denied psychiatric disability benefits. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 822.)

Dr. F. David Rudnick, M.D., Ph.D., in an unrefuted declaration, states that “[bjecause of the extremely sensitive and confidential nature of psychiatric treatment, [he believes] that there is a danger of harm even if the insurance company were to do nothing more than advise the claimant that it has been asked to seek his permission to reveal his name to others. Accordingly, it is [Dr. Rudnick’s] opinion that many individuals would be extremely upset by such a contact and this could result in an aggravation of their problems, a worsening of their condition, and even a renewal of their disability claim.”

Pollock has not offered a counterdeclaration. I, in fear that psychiatric patients might suffer harm, am unwilling to suggest an alternative approach that flies in the teeth of Dr. Rudnick’s opinion.

Cotkin, Collins & Ginsburg, James P. Collins, Jr., Ellen M. Tipping and Terry L. Kesinger, Santa Ana, for Real Party in Interest.

No appearance for Respondent.

MIRIAM A. VOGEL, J.

In Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785 , 183 Cal.Rptr. 810 , 647 P.2d 86 , our Supreme Court held that, in an action alleging an insurer's bad faith refusal to pay benefits under an accident policy, the plaintiff was entitled to discover the names and addresses of other claimants whose accident claims had been adjusted by the person who had adjusted the plaintiffs claim. In the case now before us, the trial court held that, in an action alleging an insurer's bad faith termination of benefits under a disability policy, the plaintiff is not entitled to discover the names and addresses of other claimants whose psychiatric disability claims had been denied during a four-year period. We agree with the trial court that where, as here, the disclosure of a claimant's identity necessarily discloses the claimant's psychiatric condition, the claimant's psychotherapist-patient privilege trumps the plaintiffs right to use this particular form of discovery. For this reason, we…