*480 Opinion
Dаvid P. Sorben is a licensed chiropractor. Since October 1973, Sorben has been treated on a voluntary basis for alcoholism at the Crisis and Referral Center, Riverside, California (hereinafter “Centеr”). Personnel of the Center made and maintain records relating to Sorben, including dates of visits, diagnosis, еvaluation and treatment. These records are subject to the confidentiality provisions of section 5328 et seq., of the Welfare and Institutions Code (part of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act). 1
There is pеnding before the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners (hereinafter “State Board”) an aсcusation seeking the suspension or revocation of Sorben’s chiropractic licensе alleging violation of section 10 subdivision (b) of the Chiropractic Act of California (3 West’s Ann. Bus. & Prof. Code (1974 ed.) p. 147; 4 Deering’s Ann. Bus. & Prof. Code (1961-1973 Cum. Suрp., following § 25763 at p. 277), habitual intemperance in the use of ardent spirits to such an extent as to inсapacitate him for the performance of his professional duties.
State Board petitioned the Riverside Superior Court for an order directing the Custodian of Patient Records of the Cеnter to submit all of its records pertaining to Sorben to the court for a determination by it whether the records should be disclosed to State Board for use in the pending administrative proceeding agаinst Sorben.
On June 21, 1974, the Riverside Superior Court rendered an ex parte order pursuant to State Boаrd’s petition, ordering Center’s custodian of patient records to deliver to the court Center’s rеcords relating to Sorben.
This petition for an extraordinary writ 2 followed, and we issued a stay order and alternative writ of mandate to inquire into the validity of the superior court’s order of June 21, 1974. We have concluded that the order is invalid.
The statutory scheme is as follows: section 5328 broadly provides for confidentiality: “All information and records obtained in the course of providing services under Division 5 (commencing with Section 5000), Division 6 (cоmmencing with Section 6000), or Division 7 (commencing with Section 7000), to either voluntary or involuntary recipients of services *481 shall be confidential.” There then follows in various subdivisions of section 5328 and in the sections following 5328 a number of specified exceptions to the general rule of confidentiality.
State Board concedes, as it must, that there is no specifically enumerated exception permitting disclosure to it or other administrative agencies. (Cf.
In the first place, the plain language of the exception to confidentiality containеd in subdivision (f) of section 5328 says that information and records may be disclosed to the courts, not to an administrative agency through the courts. In our view, the subdivision contemрlates use of the information or records “as necessary to the administration of justice” in somе pending judicial action or proceeding. In the case at bench there is no judicial aсtion or proceeding pending in which the use of information or records is “necessary to the administration of justice.”
Secondly, in section 5328 and succeeding sections the Legislature has speсifically provided for disclosure to certain persons or agencies under certain circumstances. Had the Legislature intended to permit disclosure to administrative agencies such as Stаte Board it would doubtless have included a specific authorization for such disclosure. (See, е.g., § 5328.2 added by Stats. 1970, ch. 1627, p. 3447, § 22.5, amended by Stats. 1972, ch. 1377, p. 2857, § 121.) “Under the familiar maxim of
expressio unius est exclusio alterius
it is well settled that, when a statute expresses certain exceptions to a general rule, other exceptions are neсessarily excluded.”
(Collins
v.
City & Co. of S. F.,
Last, one of the legislative purposes in providing for confidentiality was undoubtеdly to encourage persons with mental or alcoholic problems to seek treatment оn a voluntary basis. (See § 5001, subds. (a), (b) and (f);
Thorn
v.
Superior Court,
*482 Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue to thе Riverside County Superior Court commanding the court to vacate its order of June 21, 1974, in proceеding numbered 109283 and to dismiss the petition therein. The stay order heretofore made is vacated and thе alternative writ heretofore issued is discharged.
Gardner, P. J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.
A petition for a rehearing was denied Octobеr 29, 1974, and the petition of the real party in interest for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied Deсember 5, 1974.