Manela v. Superior Court
177 Cal. App. 4th 1139 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a child custody proceeding, a parent's constitutional right to privacy in their medical records may be overcome by the state's compelling interest in the child's best interests, but the physician-patient privilege is only waived for specific communications where confidentiality is not maintained and such a waiver is construed narrowly, not extending to all past related medical treatment.
Facts:
- David Manela (father) and Mira Manela (mother) were engaged in a marital dissolution and a dispute over the custody of their four-year-old son, Jacob.
- Mother alleged that father suffered from a 'seizure' disorder that made him unfit to care for their son.
- Father contended that he merely had a 'tic' that was controlled by medication and did not impact his ability to parent.
- Father sought joint custody of Jacob.
- Father submitted a declaration from his neurologist, Dr. Benjamin Gross, stating his condition was a controlled tic disorder that did not impair his parenting or driving abilities.
- Mother was present during an examination of father by a different physician, Dr. Hart C. Cohen, where father discussed his neurological condition.
- Mother alleged that another physician, Dr. Andrea H. Morrison, had treated father for seizures when he was 11 years old.
Procedural Posture:
- David Manela (father) filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against Mira Manela (mother) in the trial court.
- Father filed an ex parte application for an order to show cause (OSC) regarding child custody and visitation.
- In response to the OSC, mother filed a declaration raising the issue of father's alleged seizure disorder.
- Father filed responsive declarations, including one from his neurologist, Dr. Gross.
- The trial court issued an order granting the parties joint legal custody and establishing a physical custody schedule.
- Mother issued subpoenas to two of father's physicians, Dr. Cohen and Dr. Morrison, demanding production of all his medical records.
- Father filed a motion to quash the subpoenas, asserting the physician-patient privilege and his right to privacy.
- The trial court granted father's motion to quash the subpoenas in their entirety.
- Mother filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal, seeking to vacate the trial court's order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by quashing subpoenas for a father's medical records from two separate physicians, based on the physician-patient privilege, in a child custody case where the father's medical condition is relevant to the child's best interests?
Opinions:
Majority - Kitching, J.
Yes, in part, and No, in part. A parent's medical records are not absolutely protected in a child custody dispute; however, any waiver of the physician-patient privilege must be narrowly construed. The court held that the father waived the physician-patient privilege regarding Dr. Cohen by disclosing confidential information to him in the mother's presence, as her presence was not shown to be reasonably necessary for his treatment. This waiver, however, was limited to that specific communication and did not extend to the records of Dr. Morrison, who treated the father years earlier under a reasonable expectation of confidentiality. The court also found that the father did not tender his medical condition under the patient-litigant exception merely by denying the mother's allegations. Finally, while the father's constitutional right to privacy in his medical records is not absolute and is outweighed by the state's compelling interest in protecting the child's best interests, any compelled disclosure must be narrowly tailored to information relevant to that interest.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the boundaries of the physician-patient privilege and the right to privacy within the context of family law custody disputes. It establishes that while the 'best interests of the child' is a compelling state interest that can overcome a parent's privacy claims, it does not create a blanket exception to evidentiary privileges. The decision underscores that any waiver of the physician-patient privilege will be interpreted narrowly, preventing a limited disclosure from opening the door to a party's entire medical history. This precedent requires trial courts to carefully balance a child's welfare against a parent's privacy, mandating that any intrusion into medical records be precisely targeted and necessary.
Unlock the full brief for Manela v. Superior Court