Duronslet v. Kamps
2012 WL 473833, 137 Cal. Rptr. 3d 756, 203 Cal. App. 4th 717 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The physician-patient privilege under California Evidence Code § 994 does not extend to communications with a nurse, as the statutory definition of "physician" is strictly construed and does not include nurses. Additionally, hearsay evidence is admissible in a hearing for a civil harassment injunction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6, which allows a court to receive any relevant testimony.
Facts:
- Jill Duronslet and Joyce Kamps, co-owners of a two-unit building where they both lived, had a deteriorating relationship following a dispute over converting the property to condominiums around 2006.
- In December 2008, Kamps pushed Duronslet’s husband during a city inspection.
- Over the next year, Kamps engaged in hostile behavior, including screaming at Duronslet over a parking issue, being suspected of cutting sprinkler cords, and making an obscene gesture at the Duronslet family.
- On December 15, 2010, Kamps visited the Pacific Family Medical Center for an appointment.
- During the visit, Kamps told a nurse that she had a will and funeral arrangements made and that she planned to kill her neighbor (Duronslet) and then commit suicide.
- On December 20, 2010, an office manager at the medical center discovered the nurse's notes about Kamps's threat and reported it to the San Francisco Police Department.
- A police officer, Jimmy Lee, subsequently informed Duronslet of the threat Kamps had made against her.
Procedural Posture:
- The San Francisco Police Department obtained an emergency protective order against Kamps for the benefit of the Duronslet family.
- Duronslet filed a petition in the trial court for a civil harassment injunction against Kamps pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6.
- At the hearing, Kamps objected to the admission of a police report detailing her threats, arguing it was inadmissible hearsay and protected by the physician-patient privilege.
- The trial court overruled the privilege objection, 'noted' the hearsay objection, and proceeded with the hearing.
- The trial court issued a three-year injunction prohibiting Kamps from harassing or contacting the Duronslet family.
- Kamps (appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the California Court of Appeal, First District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the physician-patient privilege under California Evidence Code § 994 apply to a patient's threatening statements made to a nurse who is not a 'physician' as defined by the statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Jones, P. J.
No. The physician-patient privilege does not apply to a patient's threatening statements made to a nurse because the plain language of the governing statute does not define a nurse as a 'physician.' The court reasoned that evidentiary privileges are creations of the legislature, and courts lack the power to expand their statutory definitions. The party claiming the privilege, Kamps, bore the initial burden to show that the communication was with a physician as defined in Evidence Code § 990, which she failed to do. The court explicitly declined to follow other jurisdictions that extend the privilege to nurses acting as agents of a physician, stating it was constrained from broadening the statutory language. The court also affirmed that hearsay is admissible in civil harassment injunction hearings, as Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6 provides a statutory exception by permitting the court to 'receive any testimony that is relevant.'
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a strict constructionist approach to evidentiary privileges in California, affirming that privileges are purely statutory and cannot be judicially expanded to adapt to modern realities, such as the integral role of nurses in healthcare. The ruling clarifies that communications with non-physician medical staff are generally not protected by the physician-patient privilege, impacting both healthcare providers' reporting obligations and the scope of discoverable evidence. Furthermore, the case solidifies the principle that civil harassment injunction proceedings are expedited and thus allow for the admission of hearsay, prioritizing the need for swift protection over the strict application of evidentiary rules that govern full trials.
Unlock the full brief for Duronslet v. Kamps