FindLaw | Find a Lawyer. Find Answers.
Are you a legal Professional?
| Friday, Jan. 20, 2006 |
|
Calif. High Court Won't Hear Suit Alleging Disclosure of Medical InfoBy LINDA COADY, ESQ., Andrews Publications Staff WriterThe California Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal by a woman who claimed that a fertility clinic violated the state's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act when it disclosed details of her medical treatment to her ex-fiancé. Plaintiff Colleen M. unsuccessfully argued that the California 2d District Court of Appeal thwarted the purpose of the CMIA by finding that Fertility & Surgical Associates of Thousand Oaks did not violate state law when it disclosed her medical information to her former fiancé, whose credit card was used to pay for the fertility treatment. The CMIA generally bars disclosure of a patient's medical information without the patient's authorization, but makes an exception for disclosure to the person who is paying for the health care. However, Colleen M. said this exception does not apply to "one who happened to hold a credit card in common with the patient." Only two of the California Supreme Court seven justices voted to hear the case. The LawsuitTo conceal their identities, the parties are referred to in court papers only as Colleen M. and Ronald O. When Colleen and Ronald broke off their engagement, they agreed that Colleen could place charges on Ronald's credit card to offset a debt he owed to her. According to the lower court opinion, Ronald was to remain responsible for payment of the credit card charges. Colleen told Ronald she was going to undergo an unnamed medical treatment that would show up as a $5,000 to $6,000 charge on his credit card. When Ronald received his credit card bill he called Fertility & Surgical Associates and was told Colleen had had in vitro fertilization. A year after he learned about the in vitro fertilization, Ronald filed suit against Colleen, alleging breach of their oral contract with respect to use of the credit card, fraud and other causes of action. When Ronald's counsel served Fertility & Surgical Associates with a subpoena duces tecum, the clinic subsequently mailed all of Colleen's medical records to Ronald's attorney. According to Colleen, those records included information about her "personal life, health issues, obstetrical history, gynecological history, HIV status," miscarriages and abortions. Colleen filed suit against Fertility & Surgical Associates in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging violation of her right to privacy. She also claimed that the disclosures caused her severe emotional distress. Lower Court RulingsThe trial judge granted Fertility & Surgical Associates' motion for summary judgment, finding that the disclosures to Ronald and his attorney were authorized by the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and the consent form Colleen signed when she sought treatment at the clinic. The judge said the CMIA allows disclosure of medical information to a person responsible for the patient's health care costs. Although the appeals court panel rejected the trial judge's conclusion that Colleen had no expectation of privacy in her medical records, it did hold for Fertility & Surgical Associates under the CMIA exception concerning the person responsible for Colleen's medical treatment. The panel also found that disclosure of the medical records in response to a subpoena duces tecum was compelled under the CMIA. Petition for ReviewIn her petition for review to the state high court, Colleen argued that Ronald did not fall under the CMIA exception cited by the appeals court because he was repaying a debt and had not agreed to pay for any medical services for her. She urged review of her case so the justices could rule that the CMIA must be narrowly construed to carry out its intent that a health care insurer and not a civilian be allowed to determine what services are included in its insurance contract with the patient. In other words, the lower court had veered off course with its ruling on the scope of the CMIA, Colleen M. maintained. As for the subpoena, Colleen contended that it called for production of her medical records at the office of the court-appointed arbitrator and not via mail to Ronald's attorney. Had the records been produced at arbitration, Colleen said, she would have had an opportunity to object to their disclosure. Colleen M. v. Fertility & Surgical Associates of Thousand Oaks, No. S138799, review denied (Cal. Dec. 21, 2005). Privacy Litigation Reporter Volume 03, Issue 05 01/20/2006 FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business. All Rights Reserved. |
FAQs
- What should I look for when trying to choose a lawyer?
- How is the court system structured?
- What sorts of cases do state courts decide?
- Does needing a lawyer's help always mean that I have a legal dispute with someone?
- What is the idea behind our legal system?