Opinion ID: 844281
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application of Section 1681t(b)(1)(F) Preemption to Brown's Confidentiality Act Claims

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].)
(15) As in Carlson v. Trans Union, LLC, supra, 259 F.Supp.2d at pages 521-522, we determine whether state law claims are preempted by section 1681t(b)(1)(F) by comparing whether the substance of [the] claim ( Carlson, at p. 521)its elementsoverlaps with or is distinct from the matters regulated under section 1681s-2. (See also Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., supra, 505 U.S. at pp. 524-530 [analyzing whether state claims impose a preempted requirement or prohibition by examining the duties underlying each cause of action].) The third and fourth causes of action in the operative complaint allege, on behalf of Brown's two minor children and Brown himself, that Mortensen made unauthorized disclosures of the Browns' confidential medical information to three consumer reporting agencies. The Browns allege Mortensen disclosed to Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion their names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, telephone numbers, and Brown's and his children's entire dental history with Dr. Reinholds, including alleged dental treatments. (See Civ. Code, § 56.05, subd. (g) [defining individually identifiable medical information as information regarding a patient's medical history in combination with a name, address, telephone number, or similar detail that reveals the individual's identity].) Brown never authorized Dr. Reinholds or Mortensen to disclose this information to any third party, including the three consumer reporting agencies. Mortensen argues these claims are preempted because the operative complaint mentions Brown complained to the consumer reporting agencies that the disclosures were inaccurate and, alternatively, because the Browns' claims rest on the idea that Mortensen misled the consumer reporting agencies by implying either that Brown's children owed a debt or that their medical records were in some way relevant to Brown's disputed debt. According to Mortensen, this allegation and these theories bring the claims within section 1681s-2(a)'s regulation of furnisher accuracy and thus section 1681t(b)(1)(F)'s preemptive scope. (16) This contention mistakes the nature of a Confidentiality Act claim, both in the abstract and as pleaded. [16] As noted ante, that the information disclosed was inaccurate is not an element of a claim: the Confidentiality Act (Civ. Code, § 56 et seq.) requires only that the disclosure, whether true or not, occurred without authorization. The third and fourth causes of action repeatedly allege the disclosures occurred, were unauthorized, and injured the Browns. It will not be any part of Brown's required proof to show the disclosures were inaccurate or misleading as well. [17] Nor does the complaint establish that any of Mortensen's disclosures were made in the course of responding to official notice of a credit information dispute, such that section 1681s-2(b) would apply. Accordingly, these claims as pleaded, having as their gravamen issues neither of accuracy nor of credit dispute resolution, do not involve the same subject matter as section 1681s-2 and are not preempted.