Pub. Guardian of the Cnty. of San Luis Obispo v. S.A. (In re S.A.)
235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 744
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- S.A., with a long history of schizoaffective disorder and prior LPS conservatorships, contested the Public Guardian’s petition to be reappointed conservator and demanded a jury trial under the LPS Act.
- Two weeks before trial, Public Guardian served S.A. with records it planned to use (PHF and board-and-care records). Public Guardian subpoenaed the records, signed authorizations for their release on S.A.’s behalf, and received custodian affidavits attesting to their ordinary-course preparation.
- S.A. moved in limine to exclude the records and related expert testimony on multiple grounds: Code Civ. Proc. §1985.3 notice and authorization requirements, lack of business-record foundation, psychotherapist/physician-patient privilege, confrontation/due-process concerns, and misuse of conservatorship authority.
- The trial court allowed redacted records under the business-records exception, ruled §1985.3’s 10-day notice inapplicable to the accelerated LPS procedure, and held the conservator had statutory authority to sign releases and waive privileges.
- At trial, Public Guardian’s psychiatrist relied on the redacted records and her treatment history in testifying; the jury unanimously found S.A. gravely disabled and the conservatorship was reestablished.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (S.A.) | Defendant's Argument (Public Guardian) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Code Civ. Proc. §1985.3 notice/authorization | §1985.3’s 10-day notice and consumer-signed authorization required; production improper | LPS reestablishment is on an accelerated track; §1985.3’s 10-day requirement is impractical and unnecessary here | §1985.3’s 10-day consumer-notice requirement does not apply to the accelerated LPS reestablishment proceeding; production was not improper |
| Conservator authority to sign releases / waive privileges | Conservator should not be able to waive S.A.’s privileges and use records adversarially; duty to protect privacy | Specific statutes permit conservator to authorize release and are intended to allow records’ use in conservatorship proceedings | Statutes (Evid. Code and §5328) authorize conservator to sign releases and disclose records in conservatorship proceedings; use was permitted |
| Hearsay / business-records foundation for medical records | Records contain inadmissible hearsay; expert impermissibly relayed case-specific hearsay (Sanchez) | Records qualify under business-records exception with custodian affidavits; expert relied on admissible records and personal observations | Records, as redacted, met business-records exception (Evid. Code §1271/§1561); Drago did not relate unproven case-specific facts in violation of Sanchez |
| Constitutional due process / privacy / misuse of conservator powers | Use of conservatorship-derived access against S.A. in adversarial trial violated privacy and due process | Conservator had statutory duty to seek reestablishment and provide records; protections (sealed trial, counsel, unanimous jury, proof beyond reasonable doubt) preserved rights | Reuse of records did not violate due process or privacy given statutory scheme, safeguards, and sealed proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (clarifies limits on experts relating case-specific hearsay)
- People v. Beeler, 9 Cal.4th 953 (standard of appellate review for business-records foundation)
- Cooley v. Superior Court, 140 Cal.App.4th 1039 (admissibility of business records via affidavit under Evid. Code §1561)
- Sorenson v. Superior Court, 219 Cal.App.4th 409 (special/procedural rules in LPS proceedings and applicability of civil procedure rules)
- Conservatorship of Ben C., 40 Cal.4th 529 (standard requiring unanimous jury and proof beyond reasonable doubt in LPS conservatorship)
- Michelle K. v. Superior Court, 221 Cal.App.4th 409 (limitations on conservator’s power to replace independent counsel)
- Conservatorship of Wendland, 26 Cal.4th 519 (limits on conservator authority concerning life-sustaining treatment)
- In re M.L., 210 Cal.App.4th 1457 (disclosure under statutory exception does not automatically render privileged material admissible)