2011-00104462-CU-PA

Vanessa Jones vs. Fernando Villanueva

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Release of Medical Records (Joinder by Fernando

Filed By: Blocher, Kristin A.

Defendant Mark Graham’s (“Graham”) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Vanessa
Jones’ (“Jones”) Authorization for Release of Mental Health Records is GRANTED as
follows:

Preliminarily, the court disregards Defendant Fernando Villanueva’s (“Villanueva”)
Notice of Joinder in Graham’s motion because it was not timely served in compliance
with CCP § 1005(b). (See Lerma v. County of Orange (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 709,
718-719 [notice of joinder must be served on same timetable as original motion].)
Because the court disregards the untimely Notice of Joinder, it likewise disregards Villanueva’s Reply.

Background Facts/Procedure

This is a personal injury case in which Jones alleges serious physical injuries,
including head/brain injuries, as the result of successive, closely related vehicle
collisions that occurred in 2010. In her complaint, Jones generally alleges that she has
suffered “great mental…and nervous pain and suffering” as the result of the collisions.
(Compl., ¶ 5.)

According to Graham, Jones has produced medical records which indicate that, since
the collisions in 2010, she has received mental health diagnoses for conditions of
varying degrees of severity. In medical records dated 06/05/12, Jones apparently
complained of hearing voices, buzzing and a radio playing. (Blocher Decl., Exh. C.)
The records indicate that her treating physician, Dr. Robinson, opined that the
symptoms probably were not related to any “neurological condition” that Dr. Robinson
was treating at the time. Dr. Robinson advised Jones to discuss the voices and other
things she was hearing with “Dr. Brown.” (Id.) Jones’ medical records further indicate
that Jones consulted with Dr. Brown on 07/25/12, at which time Jones was diagnosed
with psychotic disorder. (Blocher Decl., Exh. D.) (Although Graham asserts that
Jones’ medical records indicate that she also received medication used to treat
depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, and that the records indicate Jones
suffers from post traumatic stress disorder, the court is unable to locate such records
in the materials submitted.)

Furthermore, in responses to interrogatories, Jones asserts that she has “diminished
short-term memory function, attention and concentration” and has experienced
seizures. (Id., Exhs. A-B.) And, in identifying her special damages, Jones has
identified more than $14,000 in damages associated with treatment provided by Alan
E. Booker, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist who provided neuropsychological evaluation
and testing. (Id., Exh. B.)

Graham attempted to obtain Jones’ complete mental heath records from 02/01/12 to
the present, but the provider (Kaiser Mental Health) refused to produce the records
without Jones’ signed authorization. (The parties dispute the validity of Graham’s
attempt to obtain the medical records via subpoena duces tecum, but that dispute
does not affect the court’s ruling.) Graham subsequently forwarded an authorization to
Jones for Kaiser records dated 2005 to the present, but Jones refused to sign. This
motion follows.

Discussion

Jones’ allegations and discovery responses show that her mental health is at issue.
(See In re re Lifschutz, 2 Cal.3d at 435 [“In some situations, the patient’s pleadings
may clearly demonstrate that his entire mental condition is being placed in issue and
that records of past psychotherapy will clearly be relevant”].) Graham must have
access to Jones’ mental health records in order to defend against any allegation that
he caused one or more of Jones’ alleged psychological/psychiatric ailments. Thus, the
subject records are directly relevant to the litigation, Graham has a compelling need for
the records, and the records sought are narrowly tailored to that need. Furthermore,
the court finds that, by placing her mental health at issue via her allegations and
discovery responses, Jones has waived any privilege otherwise protecting communications within the subject records.

However, the court directs counsel to enter into an appropriate protective order limiting
dissemination of Jones’ mental health records to the court and its staff, court reporters,
counsel and their staff, experts and the parties. The protective order shall incorporate
the provisions at CRC 2.550-2.551 governing the sealing of confidential records to be
filed with the court.

Conclusion

No later than March 21, 2014, Jones is ordered to sign and serve a copy of the
authorization attached as Exhibit G to the Blocher Declaration.

Graham’s counsel shall lodge the protective order for the court’s signature no later
than March 13, 2014.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC 3.1312 or
further notice is required.