Judge Kenneth J. Medel, Case 37-2022-00013276-CU-PO-CTL 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Kenneth J. Medel, Case: 37-2022-00013276-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 19, 2023

10/20/2023 09:30:00 AM C-66 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Kenneth J Medel

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited PI/PD/WD - Other Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2022-00013276-CU-PO-CTL HOBSON VS VALLEY RADIOLOGY CONSULTANTS MEDICAL GROUP INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer, 05/09/2023

Defendant Valley Radiology Consultants Medical Group, Inc.'s UNOPPOSED Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED. The UNOPPOSED Motion to Strike is GRANTED.

Plaintiff alleges that she is an employee of Pearls of Dentistry. Defendant Valley Radiology sent an email to Pearls of Dentistry which contained a link to access a case report for a particular patient's diagnostic imaging. (This patient is different from plaintiff.) The email contained login instructions to access this patient's records through Defendant's website. Plaintiff alleges that her login information was also provided in the email, which allowed access to her medical information on Defendants website.

(Paragraph 28) Plaintiff was successfully able to access her information using her login information.

Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint alleges 5 Causes of Action: (1) Violations of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, California Civil Code sections 56, et seq.; (2) Unlawful, Fraudulent, and Unfair Business Acts and Practices in Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, et. seq. (3) Invasion of Privacy; (4) Negligence; (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress CMIA To sue for disclosure of 'medical information,' a plaintiff must allege affirmative conduct that resulted in an unauthorized individual actually viewing 'substantive' information concerning the particular plaintiffs 'medical history, mental or physical condition, or treatment.' (Eisenhower Med. Ctr. v. Sup. Ct. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 430,432-36 ('Eisenhower'); Sutter v. Sup. Ct. (Atkins) (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1546, 1557 [pursuant to the Court's statutory interpretation, actual unauthorized viewing is required; CMIA 'does not provide for liability for increasing the risk of a confidentiality breach'] The First Amended Complaint does not allege disclosure of medical information. The secure login credential access provided by Defendant to another provider (Pearls of Dentistry) at issue here is similarly not CMIA 'medical information.' Further, there are no non-speculative allegations of actual viewing of CMIA 'medical information' by an unauthorized individual. (Sutter, 227 Cal.App.4th at 1554-1559 [writ issued directing demurrer be sustained without leave to amend; speculation as to whether data held by third party had been viewed legally insufficient].) Unlawful, Fraudulent and Unfair Business Acts and Practices in Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 As indicated above, plaintiff has not alleged unlawful behavior on the part of the defendant. Thus, there is no cause of action alleged based upon B&P 17200.

Invasion of Privacy The allegations here are a repeat of the allegations supporting the alleged Violations of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. There is no allegation supporting an invasion of privacy.

Negligence Defendant argues that plaintiff has not alleged a cause of action for professional negligence. Plaintiff Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2972260 22 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: HOBSON VS VALLEY RADIOLOGY CONSULTANTS MEDICAL GROUP 37-2022-00013276-CU-PO-CTL alleges breach involving Civil Code § 56.10, which prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of the confidential medical information of a patient by a provider of health care.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress The allegations are derivative of the alleged disclosure of medical information. Given the failure to show unlawful disclosure, Plaintiff does not plead sufficient facts relating to (1) any extreme or outrageous conduct that was (2) directed specifically towards Plaintiff and (3) by Valley Radiology. The pleading contains no allegations of any particular actions by Valley Radiology that can be considered intentional or outrageous and that was designed by Valley Radiology to cause emotional distress to Plaintiff.

The Demurrer and Motion to Strike are UNOPPOSED. The Court will hear as to whether leave to amend should be granted despite lack of written opposition.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2972260 22