Pettus v. Cole

California Court of Appeal
57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 46, 49 Cal. App. 4th 402, 61 Cal. Comp. Cases 975 (1996)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA), a healthcare provider retained by an employer to evaluate an employee for disability leave may not disclose the employee's detailed medical information or diagnosis to the employer without a specific written authorization; disclosure is limited to a description of the employee's functional limitations.

Facts:

Louis Pettus, an employee of E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (Du Pont) for 22 years, requested paid leave for a disabling stress-related condition.
Pursuant to Du Pont's self-insured short-term disability policy, Pettus was required to undergo medical examinations by Du Pont-selected doctors to verify his condition.
Pettus was examined by Dr. Alan Cole, a psychiatrist, to whom he disclosed sensitive information about his work history, perceived racial discrimination, anger toward a coworker, and his past and present drinking habits.
Without obtaining written authorization from Pettus, Dr. Cole provided a detailed report to Du Pont management that included Pettus's psychiatric diagnosis, personal history, and a conclusion that he might have an alcohol problem.
Du Pont then required Pettus to see Dr. Kathleen Bell Unger, a chemical dependency specialist, who also provided a detailed psychiatric report to Du Pont management without Pettus's written authorization.
Based on the detailed information in the psychiatrists' reports, Du Pont demanded that Pettus enter a 30-day inpatient alcohol rehabilitation program as a condition of his continued employment.
When Pettus refused to comply with the demand to enter the inpatient program, Du Pont terminated his employment.

Procedural Posture:

Louis Pettus sued his employer, Du Pont, and two psychiatrists, Dr. Unger and Dr. Cole, in a California state trial court.
Pettus alleged claims for unauthorized release of medical information in violation of the CMIA and invasion of privacy against the psychiatrists.
Pettus alleged claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, unauthorized use of medical information, and invasion of privacy against Du Pont.
The case proceeded to a bench trial (a trial by a judge with no jury).
At the close of the plaintiff's case-in-chief, the trial court granted the psychiatrists' motion for judgment in their favor.
After the conclusion of the entire trial, the court entered judgment in favor of Du Pont on all remaining claims.
Pettus, as the appellant, appealed both judgments to the California Court of Appeal.

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 a psychiatrist, retained by an employer to evaluate an employee for disability leave, violate the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA) by disclosing the employee's detailed medical history, psychiatric diagnosis, and personal information to the employer without a specific written authorization?

Opinions:

Majority - Phelan, J.

Yes, a psychiatrist violates the CMIA by disclosing such detailed information without specific written authorization. The court held that the disclosures by Drs. Cole and Unger were not protected by any exception to the CMIA's confidentiality requirements. The specific provision governing this situation, Civil Code § 56.10(c)(8)(B), permits a provider to disclose only the employee's 'functional limitations' that may entitle them to leave or limit their fitness for duty. The statute explicitly prohibits disclosing the 'medical cause' of the disability. The detailed psychiatric reports, which included diagnoses, family history, and personal feelings, far exceeded the narrow scope of permissible disclosure. The court also held that Du Pont violated the CMIA and Pettus's constitutional right to privacy by using this improperly obtained medical information to force him into treatment and ultimately terminate his employment.

Analysis:

This case significantly strengthens employee privacy rights in California by narrowly interpreting the exceptions to the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA). The decision establishes that an employer's right to verify a disability claim does not entitle it to an employee's complete medical or psychiatric file. It puts both employers and the healthcare providers they retain on notice that disclosures must be strictly limited to 'functional limitations' unless a specific, written authorization is obtained. The ruling curtails an employer's ability to use information gathered during a disability evaluation for other purposes, such as mandating medical treatment or making adverse employment decisions, thereby reinforcing the boundary between an employee's work life and personal health decisions.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Pettus v. Cole (1996)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature