225 Cal. App. 4th 623
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Medical Board of California investigated defendant for possible overprescribing of controlled substances.
- Board obtained CURES reports covering August 2009–February 2012 and five patients’ histories with pharmacy records.
- Board’s expert found alarming prescribing patterns: large quantities, unusual drug combinations, buprenorphine use with other opioids, irregular intervals, long durations.
- Board sought records via investigative subpoenas; patients objected; defendant withheld records citing patient privacy.
- Trial court granted petition to compel with limitations limiting disclosure to relevant material; order affirmed on appeal.
- Appellate court held CURES data access, under statutory scheme, did not violate patients’ privacy and was within good-cause authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CURES data access violated privacy rights | Board access justified by good cause under statute. | Access infringed patients’ state privacy rights. | No violation; good cause established; privacy outweighed by public interest. |
| Whether CURES statute is facially unconstitutional | Statute properly authorizes access for enforcement. | Statute facially unconstitutional without patient consent/judicial approval. | Waived; no such challenge properly raised; statute not shown unconstitutional. |
| Whether Board acted within its investigative powers and scope of good cause | Subpoenas tailored to relevant records; Board within authority to investigate. | Records sought were too broad or fishing expedition. | Board acted within scope; good cause supported; subpoenas properly enforced. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n., 7 Cal.4th 1 (1994) (privacy balancing framework with three elements)
- County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Com., 56 Cal.4th 905 (2013) (privacy framework and expectations in public records)
- Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977) (sanctioned access to prescription data for regulatory purposes)
- Arnett v. Dal Cielo, 14 Cal.4th 4 (1996) (Board investigators have broad powers including subpoenas)
- 420 Caregivers, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 219 Cal.App.4th 1316 (2012) (limited privacy expectations in regulated contexts; compelling state interests)
- Russo v. Connecticut, 259 Conn. 436 (2002) (state access to prescription records consistent with privacy protections)
- Bearman v. Superior Court, 117 Cal.App.4th 463 (2004) (need to show records are relevant and material to inquiry)
- Whalen v. Roe (duplicate entry for safety), 429 U.S. 589 (1977) (see above)