Opinion ID: 844281
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Overview of the Confidentiality Act

Text: (12) The Confidentiality Act (Civ. Code, § 56 et seq.) is intended to protect the confidentiality of individually identifiable medical information obtained from a patient by a health care provider, while at the same time setting forth limited circumstances in which the release of such information to specified entities or individuals is permissible. ( Loder v. City of Glendale (1997) 14 Cal.4th 846, 859 [59 Cal.Rptr.2d 696, 927 P.2d 1200]; see Heller v. Norcal Mutual Ins. Co. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 30, 38 [32 Cal.Rptr.2d 200, 876 P.2d 999].) (13) Civil Code sections 56.10, subdivision (a) (applicable to health care providers) and 56.26, subdivision (a) (applicable to third party administrators) establish the basic prohibition against disclosure of a patient's medical information. The basic scheme of the [Confidentiality Act], as amended in 1981, is that a provider of health care must not disclose medical information without a written authorization from the patient. ( Pettus v. Cole (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 402, 425 [57 Cal.Rptr.2d 46].) The `authorization' requirements, which are found in section 56.11, are detailed and demanding, reflecting the Legislature's interest in assuring that medical information may be disclosed only for a narrowly defined purpose, to an identified party, for a limited period of time. ( Id. at p. 426.) Alternatively, disclosure will be permitted if the provider can show that the disclosure is excepted either by the mandatory (§ 56.10, subd. (b)) or permissive (§ 56.10[, subd. (c)]) provisions of the act, allowing disclosure of medical information under specified circumstances. ( Heller v. Norcal Mutual Ins. Co., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 38.) [15] (14) It follows that in order to violate the [Confidentiality Act], a provider of health care must make an unauthorized, unexcused disclosure of privileged medical information. ( Heller v. Norcal Mutual Ins. Co., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 38.) Notably, the interest protected is an interest in informational privacy, not informational accuracy; a plaintiff need not show the disclosure was false or misleading. Indeed, the invasion of a privacy interest is all the more pronounced precisely because the disclosed information is true and may accurately reveal intimate details the patient had a right to expect were to be maintained in confidence. (See Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 41 [`A person's medical profile is an area of privacy infinitely more intimate, more personal in quality and nature than many areas already judicially recognized and protected.']; Cutter v. Brownbridge (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 836, 842 [228 Cal.Rptr. 545] [The `zones of privacy' protected by Cal. Const., art. I, § 1 extend to the details of one's medical history.]; Stats. 1981, ch. 782, § 1, p. 3040 [declaring a patient's right to expect that medical information be maintained in confidentiality].)