Dr. Vance is well known in the San Diego workers' comp community. While this unpublished decision is not the final word on the central issue of whether details of a doctor's appointment book are discoverable, it does raise the question of how far patients' privacy rights go in cases where the doctor's book is subpoenaed.
The current issue resolved here involved proper notice of the subpeoena requesting the appointment book.
Two months after the doctor's deposition was taken, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of the appointment book (with the patient names redacted) and requested costs and fees, but did not serve the notice of motion or moving papers on Dr. Vance.
Counsel for the defense (but not the doctor's attorney) filed a declaration in "response" to the motion describing certain events and stating that his office had no control over the doctor's appointment book, but did not oppose the motion to compel or serve his responsive declaration on Dr. Vance.
Shortly thereafter, the court issued an order granting the "unopposed" motion to compel, denying sanctions, and directing the doctor to produce the appointment book.
Dr. Vance learned about the motion, the hearing and the ruling only after the court had decided the matter. He then followed with the instant petition. He asserted, as a nonparty deponent, he was entitled to notice of the motion and service of the moving papers, and the lack of notice or service violated due process and prevented him from opposing the motion. He argued that simply redacting names was insufficient to protect his patients' privacy.
In this unpublished opinion by the Fourth District Court of Appeal, the Court agreed that the lack of proper service on the doctor was enough to quash the subpoena and thus give the doctor an opportunity to be heard on the issue of his patients' privacy.
The doctor was also awarded costs for litigating this writ.
The case is Vance v. Superior Court.
To read the full opinion,
PLEASE CLICK HERE.
- Help for the Injured Worker
