Duronslet v. Kamps
203 Cal. App. 4th 717
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Duronslet sought a 527.6 injunction to protect herself and family from Kamps after threats were allegedly communicated via a nurse at a medical clinic.
- Kamps argued the injunction relied on inadmissible hearsay protected by physician-patient privilege.
- The trial court overruled the physician-patient privilege and admitted the hearsay-related materials tied to the threats.
- Duronslet testified to the threat after police connectivity and an emergency protective order was issued.
- The injunction issued against Kamps from contacting Duronslet and family for up to three years.
- The appellate court held the objections forfeited, hearsay admissible at a 527.6 injunction hearing, and the privilege did not apply to nurse statements; substantial evidence supported the threat finding, and judicial notice was properly denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kamps forfeited hearsay objections | Kamps failed to object to the documents | Objections preserved alternative grounds | Yes, objections forfeited; evidence admitted despite lack of timely objection |
| Whether hearsay evidence can support a 527.6 finding | Hearsay evidence may satisfy the clear and convincing standard | Hearsay should not be sole basis | Yes, hearsay admissible and corroborative; substantial evidence supports the finding |
| Whether nurse statements fall within physician-patient privilege | Statements to nurse are privileged | Privilege extends to nurses as agents of physicians | No, nurse not a physician under §990; privilege does not apply |
| Whether substantial evidence supports a credible threat | Threats to kill neighbor and self shown by declarations | No credible threat demonstrated | Yes, substantial evidence supports credible threat under §527.6 |
| Whether the trial court properly denied judicial notice | Request for notice of nurse practitioner materials relevant | Not properly before court; not in record | Yes, judicial notice denied; information not in record and not regulatory |
Key Cases Cited
- Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 131 Cal.App.4th 417 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2005) (physician-patient privilege scope and evidence rules)
- Carlton v. Superior Court, 261 Cal.App.2d 282 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1968) (physician-patient privilege scope; nurse communications not privileged under 990)
- Schild v. Rubin, 232 Cal.App.3d 755 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1991) (standard of review for injunctions under 527.6; substantial evidence)
- Schraer v. Berkeley Property Owners’ Assn., 207 Cal.App.3d 719 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1989) (hearsay and deposition/oral testimony at 527.6 hearing; expeditious procedure)
- Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Wilson, 201 Cal.App.4th 550 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2011) (discussion of admissible hearsay in restraining order context)
- Antick v. People, 15 Cal.3d 79 (Cal. 1975) (continuing objection requirement in some contexts)
- Hill v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.4th 800 (Cal. 1998) (futility of objections in prolonged misconduct of prosecutor scenario)
- Malatka v. Helm, 188 Cal.App.4th 1074 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2010) (statutory basis for 527.6 hearings; admissibility of affidavits)
- Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 17 Cal.3d 425 (Cal. 1976) (duty to warn; Tarasoff reporting context referenced)
- OXY Resources California LLC v. Superior Court, 115 Cal.App.4th 874 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2004) (discussion of physician-patient privilege scope)
- Green v. Superior Court, 220 Cal.App.2d 121 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1963) (liberal construction of privilege in patient protection)