Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Gherardini
Decision Date | 16 May 1979 |
Parties | DIVISION OF MEDICAL QUALITY, BOARD OF MEDICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE, etc., Petitioner and Respondent, v. Mel GHERARDINI and Mount Helix General Hospital, Respondents and Appellants. Civ. 16600. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Alexander R. Tobin and John T. Borje, Upland, for respondents and appellants.
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., and David L. Chandler, Deputy Atty. Gen., for petitioner and respondent.
Mount Helix General Hospital and Mel Gherardini, custodian of records, appeal an order granting a petition of the Division of Medical Quality of the Board of Medical Quality Assurance (Medical Board), 1 commanding appellants to testify and produce hospital records and documents pertaining to five named patients. 2
The Medical Board would examine the complete medical-hospital records of five named patients of a San Diego doctor a licensee of the Medical Board. The investigator's declaration in support of the subpoena duces tecum alleges: I am conducting an investigation involving an allegation of gross negligence and/or incompetence in the treatment of patients" by the named doctor and continues: " The medical records . . . may offer evidence to substantiate the . . . allegations . . . ." The declarations allege neither patient consent nor complaint. There is no specification of any charge by a fellow physician or member of the public. No facts support the conclusionary statements. The records sought are hospital records kept by Mount Helix General Hospital (Mt. Helix). Upon Mt. Helix's refusal to surrender the records, the Medical Board sought and obtained, after hearing, the challenged superior court order.
Mt. Helix's refusal to surrender the records is based upon (1) the failure of the subpoena to allege facts amounting to reasonable and probable cause; (2) the patient-physician privilege (Evid.Code, §§ 990-1007); and (3) the patient's right of privacy found in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution and article I, section 1, of the California Constitution.
The Medical Board contends (a) "reasonable cause" need not be shown before compliance with the subpoena is required, (b) the patient-physician privilege does not apply in an investigation by the Medical Board, and (c) there is no constitutional objection to such a system.
The Medical Board concedes the patient-physician privilege, but contends Evidence Code section 1007 makes it inapplicable here; that section provides:
"There is no privilege under this article in a proceeding brought by a public entity to determine whether a right, authority, license, or privilege (including the right or privilege to be employed by the public entity or to hold public office) should be revoked, suspended, terminated, limited, or conditioned."
The Medical Board contends this statutory exception "squarely" applies and authorizes the subpoena here. The Medical Board reasons as follows: Evidence Code section 901 defines a "proceeding" as "any action, hearing, investigation, inquest, or inquiry (whether conducted by a court, administrative agency, hearing officer, arbitrator, legislative body, or any other person authorized by law) in which, pursuant to law, testimony can be compelled to be given"; an investigation under Government Code section 11180 is a proceeding within the meaning of Evidence Code section 901, since testimony can be compelled pursuant to Government Code section 11181(e); and concludes the doctor-patient privilege does not apply in an investigative proceeding conducted under Government Code section 11180 when the purpose of the investigation is to determine if a right, authority, license, or privilege should be revoked, suspended, terminated, limited, or conditioned. (59 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 186, 194-195.)
The Medical Board further asserts that in order to compel testimony and production of documents pursuant to an administrative investigative subpoena, all that need be shown is that an investigation is under way. Brovelli v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 524, 529, 15 Cal.Rptr. 630, 633, 364 P.2d 462, 465, cited in support of this proposition, declares:
(Italics added.)
(See also Shively v. Stewart, 65 Cal.2d 475, 479, 55 Cal.Rptr. 217, 421 P.2d 65; People v. West Coast Shows, Inc., 10 Cal.App.3d 462, 470, 89 Cal.Rptr. 290; Fiedler v. Berkeley Properties Inc., 23 Cal.App.3d 30, 40, 99 Cal.Rptr. 791.)
The right of the Medical Board to investigate, to reasonably regulate the licensee-doctor is not in dispute, but here the rights of the Patient are under scrutiny. Therefore, we confront a threshold question of the right of Mt. Helix to assert the statutory privilege or constitutional rights to privacy on behalf of the patient who, insofar as the record reflects, has not been notified of the Medical Board's desire to look at the data or consented to such an examination by the investigators. Mt. Helix, a third party recipient of privileged matter, has standing to claim the privilege on behalf of the absent non-consenting patient (Rudnick v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 924, 933, fn. 12, 114 Cal.Rptr. 603, 523 P.2d 643) 3 and under the "vicarious exclusionary rule" to object to the admission of evidence obtained in violation of another's constitutional rights (Kaplan v. Superior Court, 6 Cal.3d 150, 155-157, 98 Cal.Rptr. 649, 491 P.2d 1).
Since the Brovelli decision, the United States Supreme Court in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350-352, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576, added a new dimension to search and seizure law. The individual is protected under the Fourth Amendment to the federal Constitution from governmental intrusion where (1) he has exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy, and (2) that expectation had been violated by an unreasonable government intrusion. The Katz concepts parallel similar reasoning with roots in the California Constitution (article I, section 13) prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. While the Katz rule grows from a criminal setting, these parallel constitutional provisions protect the individual in as yet unmeasured, unexplored non-criminal fact settings where the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy from state intrusion. (See Burrows v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.3d 238, 118 Cal.Rptr. 166, 529 P.2d 590; White v. Davis, 13 Cal.3d 757, 774, 120 Cal.Rptr. 94, 533 P.2d 222; People v. Krivda, 5 Cal.3d 357, 364-365, 96 Cal.Rptr. 62, 486 P.2d 1262; People v. Doyle, 77 Cal.App.3d 126, 128, 141 Cal.Rptr. 639.)
The Brovelli decision also was written before Griswold v. State of Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 1681, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 where the United States Supreme Court declared:
The breath of the concept of privacy enunciated by Griswold v. State of Connecticut has been upheld in a multitude of fact contexts (White v. Davis, 13 Cal.3d 757, 774, fn. 10, 120 Cal.Rptr. 94, 533 P.2d 222) but as yet remain a concept of as yet "undetermined parameters" albeit in process of almost daily growth. (See Tavernetti v. Superior Court, 22 Cal.3d 187, 194-195, 148 Cal.Rptr. 883, 583 P.2d 737; Burrows v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.3d 238, 247, 248, 118 Cal.Rptr. 166, 529 P.2d 590.)
Further, the Brovelli rule must be examined in light of article I, section 1, of the California Constitution wherein the people of this state mandate express constitutional protection to the individual's right of privacy. Article I, section 1 ( ) now reads:
This constitutional amendment reflects "the public policy favoring the protection of privacy rights" and (Tavernetti v. Superior Court, supra, 22 Cal.3d 187, 194, 148 Cal.Rptr. 883, 888, 583 P.2d 737, 742.)
This constitutional amendment did more than declare an already existing right.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
De Lancie v. Superior Court of State of Cal., San Mateo County
... ... Royer and Fred Lyon, members of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo, Real Parties in ... 117; Division of Medical Quality v. Gherardini (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 669, 680.) ... ...
- Mathews v. Harris
-
Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Van de Kamp
... ... to informational privacy by disclosing intimate medical information to the state for placement in a permanent ... California State Air Resources Board (1974) 11 Cal.3d 801, 808-809, 114 Cal.Rptr. 577, 523 P.2d ... 148; Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Gherardini (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 669, 156 ... ...
- Doe v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
-
Privileges and public policy exclusions
...privilege creates a zone of privacy whose purposes are the following [ Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Gherardini (1979) 93 Cal. App. 3d 669, 678-679, 156 Cal. Rptr. 55]: • To preclude the humiliation of the patient that might follow disclosure of his or her ailments. • To encourage t......
-
Table of cases
...Price Waterhouse & Co. (1985) 165 Cal. App. 3d 806, 212 Cal. Rptr. 42, §7:01 Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Gherardini (1979) 93 Cal. App. 3d 669, 156 Cal. Rptr. 55, §10:90 Boeken v. Philip Morris, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal. App. 4th 1640, 26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 638, §§11:10, 22:160 Bogle, Peopl......
-
Gone Fishing? Preventing Accusations of Investigative Subpoena Overreach
...Coast Shows, Inc., supra, 10 Cal.App.3d at p. 470. But see Division of Medical Quality, Bd. of Medical Quality v. Gheraradini (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 669, 680-681 [where the court criticized the declaration in support of a subpoena for medical records because it "set forth no facts, no showing......
-
Public Health Versus Civil Liberties: Washington State Imposes Hiv Surveillance and Strikes the Proper Balance
...HIV-positive). 73. Burris, supra note 62, at 856. 74. Id. 75. Id. at 862. 76. See State Bd. of Med. Quality Assurance v. Gherardini, 93 Cal. App. 3d 669, 678 77. Doughty, supra note 65, at 123-24. 78. Id. at 123. 79. Gostin and Hodge, supra note 17, at 684. 80. Craig Pittman, Mortician Guil......