10 Cited authorities

Britt v. Superior Court
20 Cal.3d 844 (Cal. 1978) Cited 169 times
Holding that patient "may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue"
Heller v. Norcal Mut. Ins. Co.
8 Cal.4th 30 (Cal. 1994) Cited 91 times
Holding plaintiff's expectation as to confidentiality was unreasonable where information "would have been inevitably discovered"
Vinson v. Superior Court
43 Cal.3d 833 (Cal. 1987) Cited 85 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding no right for the attorney to attend the psychiatric examination and leaving that decision to the trial court's discretion
Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Gherardini
93 Cal.App.3d 669 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979) Cited 89 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing "the right of a grand jury to so investigate within its lawful sphere," but nevertheless requiring notice to account holder before service of grand jury subpoena on bank
Harris v. Superior Court
3 Cal.App.4th 661 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) Cited 30 times
In Harris v. Superior Court (Smets) 3 Cal.App.4th 661 (1992), the court grappled with the precise issue before this court.
Binder v. Superior Court
196 Cal.App.3d 893 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) Cited 32 times
Holding that Rudnick did not apply to photographs of patients, even if the patients could not be identified in the photographs
Tylo v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty.
55 Cal.App.4th 1379 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 18 times
In Tylo v. Spelling Entertainment Group, Inc., 55 Cal. App. 4th 1379 (Cal. App. 1997), the plaintiff signed a contract to appear in the television series "Melrose Place."
Knoettgen v. Superior Court
224 Cal.App.3d 11 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) Cited 8 times
Asserting that courts must be "vigilant" when allowing civil discovery concerning prior sexual abuse
Hallendorf v. Superior Court
85 Cal.App.3d 553 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978) Cited 3 times
Docket No. 43773. October 16, 1978. COUNSEL Casey Casey and James N. Casey for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Gassett, Perry, Frank Bondelie, William L. Reagan and John S. Burton for Real Party in Interest. OPINION ROUSE, J. Petitioner, plaintiff in a personal injury action, seeks relief by extraordinary writ after respondent court granted a defense motion to compel further answers to interrogatories and to compel compliance with a subpoena duces tecum requiring the production of medical
Section 2607 - Prohibition against kickbacks and unearned fees
12 U.S.C. § 2607 Cited 1,332 times 53 Legal Analyses
Holding persons who violate § 2607 jointly and severally liable to persons charged with settlement services

Motion_to_quash_subpoena_medical_records

10 Cited authorities

Holding that patient "may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue"

Holding plaintiff's expectation as to confidentiality was unreasonable where information "would have been inevitably discovered"

Finding no right for the attorney to attend the psychiatric examination and leaving that decision to the trial court's discretion

Recognizing "the right of a grand jury to so investigate within its lawful sphere," but nevertheless requiring notice to account holder before service of grand jury subpoena on bank

In Harris v. Superior Court (Smets) 3 Cal.App.4th 661 (1992), the court grappled with the precise issue before this court.

Holding that Rudnick did not apply to photographs of patients, even if the patients could not be identified in the photographs

In Tylo v. Spelling Entertainment Group, Inc., 55 Cal. App. 4th 1379 (Cal. App. 1997), the plaintiff signed a contract to appear in the television series "Melrose Place."

Asserting that courts must be "vigilant" when allowing civil discovery concerning prior sexual abuse

Holding persons who violate § 2607 jointly and severally liable to persons charged with settlement services