Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV31249, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV31249 Hearing Date: December 7, 2022 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers and argument of counsel, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
Stuart Jacobson (Plaintiff) filed this action against Adventist Health Glendale; Glendale Adventist Medical Center; Glendale Adventist Emergency Physicians, Inc.; M. Cardilio, M.D.; Andy Wai Ming Wong, M.D.; Peter C. Utas, M.D.; David Friend, M.D.; Amber Sanders, RN; Maria Deleon, RN; Kyeongeun Park, RN; Helen Annie Dove, PA-C; Helia Gabriella Laftavi, PA-C; Tiffany M. Le, PA-C (collectively, Defendants) on August 23, 2021, alleging one cause of action for medical negligence.
When Plaintiff was being treated for his injury, some of his medical expenses were covered by Medicare. Defendants advised Plaintiff’s counsel that a signed authorization was necessary for the production of Medicare records via subpoena because Medicare requires a signed authorization and/or federal court order prior to produce medical records.
Defendants filed this motion on November 3, 2022. Plaintiff filed the opposition on November 22, and Defendants filed a reply on November 30.
Trial is set for February 21, 2023.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Motion
Defendants ask the Court to compel Plaintiff to sign a release of his of medical records from Medicare. Defendants also ask the Court to compel Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to comply with their subpoena. Finally, Defendants ask for monetary sanctions.
Plaintiff counters that he provided Defendants with sufficient records, particularly the billing records from medical providers. Plaintiff also contends the Code of Civil Procedure does not contemplate Defendant’s motion with regard to an order compelling Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to comply with the subpoena.
Reply
Defendant argues that the records Plaintiff provided are insufficient because they do not include all of the information regarding Medicare.
DISCUSSION
The Court cannot compel plaintiff to sign an authorization for the release of medical records. Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.010 prescribes six methods of civil discovery: 1) Oral and written depositions. 2) Interrogatories to a party. 3) Inspections of documents, things, and places. 4) Physical and mental examinations. 5) Requests for admissions. 6) Simultaneous exchanges of expert trial witness information.” (Haniff v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 191, 200.) Compelling a party to sign an authorization is not an enumerated method of civil discovery. The Court lack the power to order discovery beyond that permitted by the statutes. (Haniff v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 191, 199, citing Cruz v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 646, 650.)
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the motion to compel Plaintiff to sign authorization for release of medical records and to compel compliance with subpoena is DENIED.
Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.
Moving parties to give notice.