Court Opinion

ID: 9749417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:42:30.487875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:48.154673
License: Public Domain

*823MALLANO, J., Concurring.
I agree with the majority opinion save for the first paragraph of part C in which it suggests an alternative approach to contacting claimants who were denied psychiatric disability benefits. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 822.)
Dr. F. David Rudnick, M.D., Ph.D., in an unrefuted declaration, states that “[bjecause of the extremely sensitive and confidential nature of psychiatric treatment, [he believes] that there is a danger of harm even if the insurance company were to do nothing more than advise the claimant that it has been asked to seek his permission to reveal his name to others. Accordingly, it is [Dr. Rudnick’s] opinion that many individuals would be extremely upset by such a contact and this could result in an aggravation of their problems, a worsening of their condition, and even a renewal of their disability claim.”
Pollock has not offered a counterdeclaration. I, in fear that psychiatric patients might suffer harm, am unwilling to suggest an alternative approach that flies in the teeth of Dr. Rudnick’s opinion.