Vilches v. Leao

93 Cal.App.5th 1335

311 Cal.Rptr.3d 702

Frank VILCHES, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.Michelle LEAO, Defendant and Respondent.

A163638

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, California.

Filed July 28, 2023

Evans & Page, Corey Page, San Francisco, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Ciara M. Dineen, San Francisco, Jennifer E. Elgie, San Francisco, Jeffry A. Miller, San Diego, Suzanne L. Schmidt, San Diego, for Defendant and Respondent.

BROWN, P. J.

Under Health and Safety Code ¹ section 123110, the personal representative of a minor is entitled to access the minor's patient records with certain statutory exceptions. ( § 123110, subds. (a) – (b).) Pursuant to the exception at issue in this appeal, the patient records are inaccessible where "[t]he health care provider determines that access to the patient records requested by the representative would have a detrimental effect on the provider's professional relationship with the minor patient or the minor's physical safety or psychological well-being. The decision of the health care provider as to whether or not a minor's records are available for inspection or copying under this section shall not attach any liability to the provider, unless the decision is found to be in bad faith." (§ 123115, subd. (a)(2).)

Plaintiff Frank Vilches filed suit against defendant Michelle Leao to compel the release of his minor daughter's therapy records after defendant denied his request for the records. ( §§ 123100, 123120.) The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that there were no triable issues of fact as to whether defendant made the detriment determination under section 123115, subdivision (a)(2) or whether she did so in good faith. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is the father and sole guardian of Jane Doe, his minor daughter (also referred to as "minor patient"). Defendant is a licensed marriage and family therapist. When his daughter was seven years old, plaintiff was concerned for her well-being and brought her to defendant for treatment. Defendant provided therapy for the minor patient, which plaintiff paid for.

On April 24, 2018, plaintiff emailed defendant, stating, "I would like all records that you have of my daughter from the first session to present." He requested that defendant mail copies of the records to him or make them available for pick up. Defendant initially responded to plaintiff's request and agreed to release the records. Later that day, however, defendant responded again, this time stating that she was denying plaintiff's request for his daughter's treatment records because she had determined that it would have a detrimental impact on the minor patient's well-being. Defendant's decision to deny plaintiff's request was based on her clinical judgment that it would have a detrimental effect on the minor patient's ability to trust in general, and would negatively impact the patient-counselor relationship. Defendant was also concerned that plaintiff would use the records to coach his daughter to respond favorably during the court evaluation in an upcoming custody proceeding.

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant on January 7, 2020, alleging a single cause of action for violation of section 123110. Plaintiff sought injunctive relief directing defendant to release the requested records and attorney's fees under section 123120.

Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that under section 123115, subdivision (a)(2), she could not be liable for her denial of plaintiff's request unless her decision was made in bad faith. The trial court denied defendant's motion, finding that it was not essential to plead facts demonstrating bad faith to pursue a cause of action under section 123110.

Defendant filed an answer and subsequently moved for summary judgment on the grounds that she made the statutory determination required to prevent disclosure of the minor patient's records and her decision was not made in bad faith, which plaintiff was required to establish under section 123115, subdivision (a)(2). Plaintiff opposed defendant's motion, asserting that the absence of bad faith does not immunize a therapist's determination from judicial review. He argued that section 123110 creates a presumption of entitlement to disclosure of his daughter's records, and that defendant's determination to withhold the records does not overcome that presumption unless the therapist makes a finding of parental abuse. He further asserted that defendant made her decision to withhold the records without finding detriment, and that she failed to categorize the records and make an independent determination of detriment as to each type of record. If he was required to establish bad faith, he contended that he had raised a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant's decision to withhold the records was in bad faith.

In reply, defendant argued that the statute does not require her to make separate determinations for each type of patient record and that her decision to withhold the minor patient's records in their entirety was based on her clinical judgment concerning her minor patient's best interests. Defendant also contended that there was no triable issue of fact as to the good-faith basis for her determination because there was no evidence to contradict her testimony.

The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that defendant had established that she made the statutorily-required detriment determination and plaintiff failed to show a triable issue of fact on bad faith. Plaintiff timely appealed.²

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues the trial court erred in finding that: (1) he did not present a triable issue of fact regarding whether defendant made the statutory determination required under section 123115, subdivision (a)(2) ( section 123115(a)(2) ); and (2) he had to establish that defendant's determination was in bad faith to compel disclosure of the records. To resolve these contentions, we employ the well-established standards governing review of summary judgment orders ( Code of Civ. Proc., § 437c ; Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 24 P.3d 493 ), as well as de novo review of questions of statutory interpretation. ( Andrews v. Metropolitan Transit System (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 597, 603–604, 289 Cal.Rptr.3d 728 ; Goodman v. Lozano (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1327, 1332, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 219, 223 P.3d 77.)

A. The Statutory Scheme

Section 123110 generally provides that any patient and "any patient's personal representative shall be entitled to inspect patient records upon presenting to the health care provider a request for those records and upon payment of reasonable costs."³ ( § 123110, subd. (a).) "Additionally, any patient or patient's personal representative shall be entitled to a paper or electronic copy of all or any portion of the patient records that they have a right to inspect, upon presenting a request to the health care provider specifying the records to be copied, together with a fee to defray the costs of producing the copy or summary ...." ( § 123110, subd. (b)(1).)

The access granted under section 123110, however, is expressly subject to sections 123115 and 123120. ( §§ 123110, subd. (a), 123115, subd. (a).) Section 123115(a)(2) states that "[t]he representative of a minor shall not be entitled to inspect or obtain copies of the minor's patient records, including clinical notes, in any of the following circumstances: ... [¶] [ ] When the health care provider determines that access to the patient records requested by the representative would have a detrimental effect on the provider's professional relationship with the minor patient or the minor's physical safety or psychological well-being. The decision of the health care provider as to whether or not a minor's records are available for inspection or copying under this section shall not attach any liability to the provider, unless the decision is found to be in bad faith."

The Legislature provided for a private right of action to enforce section 123110. "Any patient or representative aggrieved by a violation of section 123110 may, in addition to any other remedy provided by law, bring an action against the health care provider to enforce the obligations prescribed by section 123110." ( § 123120.) Section 123120 further states that "[a]ny judgment rendered in the action, may, in the discretion of the court, include an award of costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party."

B. When the Health Care Provider Makes the Section 123115(a)(2) Detriment Determination, Plaintiff Must Show Bad Faith to Compel Disclosure

We start by recognizing that section 123115(a)(2) is abundantly clear in stating that, "[T]he representative of a minor shall not be entitled to inspect or obtain copies of the minor's patient records .... [¶] ... [¶] When the health care provider determines that access to the patient records requested by a personal representative would have a detrimental effect on the provider's professional relationship with the minor patient or the minor's physical safety or psychological well-being." (Italics added.) Thus, when faced with the question of whether to compel disclosure of minor's patient records to a personal representative ( §§ 123110, 123120 ), as defendant conceded below, the threshold inquiry for the court must be whether the health care provider made the section 123115(a)(2) detriment determination.

As is apparent from the interplay of the relevant statutes, if the health care provider made the section 123115(a)(2) detriment determination, the next question—which appears to be one of first impression—is whether a personal representative seeking to compel disclosure of a minor's records under section 123120 must establish that the provider made his or her section 123115 (a)(2) determination of detriment in bad faith. As set forth below, we conclude such a showing is...