An Administrator's Guide to California Private School Law

Chapter 10 - Privacy Rights Of Students And Employees

Although an employer has lawfully obtained information, it may still be illegal to use that medical information. LCW Practice Advisor There are limited exceptions to the disclosure of medical information. They include release pursuant to a valid subpoena and as a defense when the employee or student has put his or her medical history at issue. Garrett v. Young 1728

A patient sought medical treatment for a rash, sleeplessness, weight loss, and complained of stress. The doctor diagnosed her with severe depression, referred her to a psychiatrist, and sent “return-to-work” documents to her employer. After inquiry from the employer, the doctor indicated that the patient suffered from itching and stress. The doctor did not discuss any diagnostic tests nor did he reveal the psychiatric referral. After discovering that the doctor had disclosed some information to her employer, the plaintiff brought suit alleging a violation of the CMIA. Both the trial and appellate court found no violation of the CMIA as the patient’s rash and itching were plainly visible. Moreover, she had discussed her condition, along with job-related stress, to co-workers, thereby waiving her right to sue for a violation of the CMIA. In addition, an employer that receives a document from a medical doctor purporting to contain a medical excuse for failure to appear at work may verify its contents with the physician whose name appears on it without either party violating the CMIA. A health care provider is statutorily permitted to discuss “a general description of the reasons for treatment, the general nature of the injury or condition, [and] the general condition of the patient,” as this doctor did. This plaintiff failed to provide a specific, written request to the health care provider to prevent release of information. Pettus v. Cole 1729 Plaintiff was required to submit to a medical examination by an employer- selected doctor in order to receive short-term disability for stress. The initial doctor referred the plaintiff to a psychiatrist, who after suspecting alcohol abuse, then referred plaintiff to a third doctor who specialized in chemical dependency. Both subsequent doctors failed to obtain written authorization from the employee to disclose information to his employer. Nonetheless, both psychiatrists provided detailed written and oral reports to his employer. Both doctors disclosed details about the employee’s work and family history, his drinking habits, his problems at work, his violent thoughts towards a co-worker, and his current psychiatric symptoms. Both doctors also told the supervisor that they thought the employee was using alcohol “adversely.” Based on the above information, the employer directed the employee to enroll in a 30-day inpatient

An Administrator’s Guide to California Private School Law ©2019 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 386