2013-00155990-CU-PT

Richard J Charles vs. Farmers Insurance Exchange

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Signed Releases of Medical Records from Veteran’s

Filed By: Snyder, Gregory G.

Respondent Farmers Insurance Exchange’s (“Farmers”) motion to compel Claimant
Richard Charles (“Charles”) to sign releases and/or authorization to release his
medical records from the Veteran’s Administration (“VA”) is ruled upon as follows.

This is an uninsured motorist action arising from a two vehicle accident in which
Charles’ vehicle was rear ended. Charles was treated at Mercy Folsom Hospital, then
received follow up treatment with the VA Medical Center at McClellan. Charles then
went to an non-VA doctor, Dr. McCrory, in order to keep his military health records
separate from the treatment for the accident. Dr. McCrory reported that he had
reviewed Charles’ pre-accident military medical records and commented that Charles
was granted 100% service related disability through the Veterans Administration
secondary to among other things chronic recurrent low back pain. Dr. McCrory noted
that apportionment will be necessary since Plaintiff was having baseline debilitating
low back pain with disability prior to the accident.

Farmers moves to compel Charles to sign the releases and or authorizations of his
medical records from the VA on the grounds that they are necessary and relevant to
the defense of the matter and will allow Farmers and its medical experts to properly
evaluate any relationship the accident had with Charles’ claim for injuries which he
attributes to the accident. The authorization seeks the “medical records for treatment
of my back, neck, arms and legs from 1970/01/01 to the present.”

In opposition to the motion, Charles argues that he has already provided Farmers with
76 pages of redacted records from the VA and that the records are so intermingled
and interspersed in such a way as to make it impossible for Charles rights to privacy
for unrelated medical conditions to be protected. Charles “has no dispute that
[Farmers] may have a right to information concerning his neck, back, arms and legs
pre-collision” (Opposition, 3:4-5), but requests that in the event the Court grants the
motion, that it conduct an in camera review of the records prior to providing it to
Farmers.

The Court finds that Farmers has demonstrated good cause to compel the Charles to
sign the releases and/or authorizations. Indeed, as noted above, Charles concedes
that he is entitled to the information relating to his back, neck, arms, and legs pre-
collision. Although Charles has provide 76 redacted records from the VA, the Court is
not convinced, and Charles has not provided legal authority, that he may redact those
portions of the documents which he considers not relevant to the action.

The Court is also not convinced that there are less intrusive methods of obtaining the information. Nor is the Court convinced that the instant motion is an “end run” around
Farmers’ time to move to compel on its Demand for Production of Documents, No. 1
as the request does not seek the identical documents that will be produced from the
VA.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

The Court, declines Charles’ request to conduct an in camera review of the records. It
is for the arbitrator to decide what is relevant or not relevant to the action. The Court,
however, is inclined to agree that such information should be subject to a protective
order based on Charles’ privacy concerns. The Court is prepared to enter a protective
order regarding the confidentiality of these documents. The parties are to meet and
confer and submit a formal order for the Court’s signature.

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

Moving counsel is admonished for filing a motion without redacting or otherwise
shielding the social security number found in the Request for and Authorization Forms
which accompany the motion, in violation of CRC Rule 1.20(b). Counsel is reminded
that the Court’s CCMS system allows the public to electronically access and view all
pleadings once they are filed, unless the Court orders otherwise. Thus, it is
imperative for counsel to appropriately redact all pleadings and documents
before filing. Failure to do so will in the future subject counsel to monetary sanctions.
No later than May 7, 2014 moving counsel shall file and serve (1) an appropriate
motion to seal pursuant to CRC Rule 2.550 et seq. and (2) an appropriately redacted
but otherwise identical version of the “Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Signed
Releases and/or Authorizations of Claimant’s Medical Records from the Veteran’s
Administration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration” which was filed
on January 23, 2014 and contains the unredacted social security number.

The clerk is directed to change the security clearance for “Notice of Motion and
Motion to Compel Signed Releases and/or Authorizations of Claimant’s Medical
Records from the Veteran’s Administration; Memorandum of Points and
Authorities; Declaration” which was not redacted but nevertheless filed on
1/23/2014.