Duronslet

Duronslet v. Kamps

Good Law
137 Cal. Rptr. 3d 756·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 137·203 Cal. App. 4th 717·2012 WL 473833
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 15, 2012No. A131496California7,812 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Jones, J.

The trial court issued an injunction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 protecting Jill Duronslet and her immediate family from Joyce Kamps. On appeal, Kamps contends the injunction must be reversed because the only evidence that she made a “credible threat of violence” under section 527.6, former subdivision (a) 1 was inadmissible multiple hearsay protected by the physician-patient privilege.

We affirm. We conclude Kamps forfeited her objections to certain hearsay evidence offered at the hearing on Duronslet’s injunction. We also conclude the trial court may consider such hearsay evidence when deciding whether to issue an injunction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure former section 527.6. Finally, we conclude Kamps has failed to satisfy her burden to demonstrate that statements she made to a nurse at Pacific Family Medical Center were covered by the physician-patient privilege set forth in Evidence Code section 990 et seq.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In December 2010, Duronslet and Kamps co-owned a two-unit building in San Francisco; Kamps lived upstairs and Duronslet lived downstairs with her husband and two children. In approximately 2004,…

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.