On 03/07/2018 a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice case was filed by LINDA GINSBURG against FRANTZ R LEREBOURS M D in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
DANIEL S. MURPHY
BAUMGARTEN JANA M.D.
LEREBOURS FRANTZ R. M.D.
CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION INSTITUTE
1/15/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
1/15/2019: Proof of Service by Mail
1/15/2019: Separate Statement
3/7/2019: Exhibit List
3/7/2019: Joinder to Motion for Summary Judgment / Adjudication
3/8/2019: Notice of Lodging
5/3/2019: Notice of Lodging
5/3/2019: Notice of Lodging
5/3/2019: Notice of Lodging
5/28/2019: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
6/26/2019: Case Management Statement
6/27/2019: Certificate of Mailing for
7/1/2019: Case Management Statement
Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Linda Ginsburg (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Separate Statement; Filed by Linda Ginsburg (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Opposition (to Defendant California Rehabilitation Institute's Joinder in Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center's Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Linda Ginsburg (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Management Statement; Filed by Linda Ginsburg (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice (of Continuance of Hearing on Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center's Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Erroneously Sued As Cedars-Sinai (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 32, Daniel S. Murphy, Presiding; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Stipulation and Order ( Re: Hearing Date on Cedars-Sinai Medical Center's Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Erroneously Sued As Cedars-Sinai (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order) of 06/27/2019); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Case Management Statement; Filed by Frantz R. M.D. Lerebours (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULTRead MoreRead Less
Proof of ServiceRead MoreRead Less
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESRead MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Erroneously Sued As Cedars-Sinai (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Declaration; Filed by Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Erroneously Sued As Cedars-Sinai (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
AnswerRead MoreRead Less
Declaration of Trial AttorneyRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Linda Ginsburg (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR: MEDICAL MALPRACTICERead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC697132 Hearing Date: March 13, 2020 Dept: 32
FRANTZ R. LEREBOURS M.D., et. al.
Case No.: BC697132
Hearing Date: March 13, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
Defendants’ MOTION to compel carol kiriakos to comply with a deposition subpoena
Plaintiff Linda Ginsburg (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against Defendants Frantz R. Lerebours M.D. (“Lerebours”), Jana Baumgarten M.D. (“Baumgarten”), California Rehabilitation Institute (“CRI”), and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (“CSMC”) on March 7, 2018. The Complaint asserts a single cause of action for medical malpractice. The Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows.
On December 11, 2016, Ginsburg was admitted to CSMC for surgery to address a right hip fracture. Dr. Lerebours, an agent/employee of CSMC, performed the hip surgery. Four days later, Lerebours discharged Ginsburg and ordered her to undergo inpatient physical therapy at CRI. Lerebours’ referral lacked adequate restriction instructions in light of Ginsburg’s age (66 years old), recent hip surgery, and notable orthopedic medical history. At CRI, Ginsburg was subjected to an eight-day regimen of physical therapy supervised and administered by Dr. Baumgarten, a CSMC agent/employee. This physical therapy ultimately resulted in Ginsburg suffering a fracture in her right femur and having to undergo another operation to treat the femur injury.
“If a subpoena requires … the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things …, the court may, upon motion reasonably made by [a party], … make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.” (CCP § 1987.1(a), (b).) Motions to compel a non-party to produce documents must set forth facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought. (See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)
In ruling on a motion made under CCP section 1987.1, “the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” (CCP § 1987.2(a).)
Defendants CSMC, Baumgarten, and Lerebours (hereinafter, “Defendants”) move to compel Carol Kiriakos, M.D. (“Kiriakos”), Plaintiff’s psychiatrist, to comply with a deposition subpoena for personal appearance and production of documents (“Subpoena”). The Subpoena requests that Kiriakos produce “[a]ny and all medical records, notes and documents … from first date of treatment up to and including the present, pertaining to the care, treatment and examination of [Plaintiff].”
Defendants explain that the Subpoena was propounded to obtain information concerning (1) Plaintiff’s baseline mental/emotional status prior to the incidents at issue in this litigation, (2) Plaintiff’s history of alcohol abuse, (3) how that abuse and other factors have impacted Plaintiff’s mental/emotional health, and (4) how that alcohol abuse may have contributed to the injuries that she seeks to recover for in this lawsuit. Defendants state that this information is directly relevant to Plaintiff’s damages claim because Plaintiff alleges that she suffered and continues to suffer “severe emotional/mental pain” due to the femur fracture. (Moulin Decl. Ex. B.) Defendants state that the information is directly relevant to Plaintiff’s proximate causation contention because of the deleterious effects that alcohol abuse can have on the body. To illustrate this connection, Defendants submit a declaration from Glenna Tolbert, M.D. (“Tolbert”). Tolbert reviewed Plaintiff’s CSMC medical records and opines based on this review that Plaintiff has a history of alcohol dependence. (Tolbert Decl. ¶ 4.) Tolbert notes, for example, that medical records of Plaintiff’s hospitalization at CSMC for her hip fracture reflect that (1) her husband reported that she had been drinking, (2) her blood alcohol level was 0.241, and (3) her surgery was delayed due to concerns about potential acute alcohol withdrawal. (Tolbert Decl. ¶ 5.) Tolbert declares that evidence of alcohol abuse is relevant to the femur fracture because heavy drinking can increase the risk of osteoporosis, decrease bone formation, increase bone breakdown, and affect balance and gait causing those who abuse alcohol to fall more frequently. (Tolbert Decl. ¶ 8.)
Plaintiff argues that the Subpoena violates her right to privacy because it “cover[s] anything ranging from sexual anxieties, fear of flying, postpartum, or anything else under the sun.” (Opp. at 4.) The Court agrees in part. The Subpoena captures substantial private information that has no bearing on this case. (See Hooser v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 997, 1003-04 disapproved on other grounds by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531 (stating that constitutional right of privacy “protects against the unwarranted compelled disclosure of various private or sensitive information regarding one’s personal life”).) This violation of privacy requires the Subpoena to be narrowed. In reply, Defendants express a willingness to narrow the scope of the Subpoena. Defendants note that they have “no interest” in the aforementioned private matters and are “happy to enter into a stipulation that records or testimony concerning such matters [be] privileged.” (Reply at 1.) Defendants propose limiting the Subpoena “to records concerning alcohol and/or drug abuse.” (Reply at 2.) The Court finds this limitation acceptable because Defendants’ evidence of good cause centers on Plaintiff’s alleged alcohol abuse. With this limitation in place, the Court concludes that Defendants’ interest in disclosure of this information sought by the Subpoena outweighs Plaintiff’s privacy interest in its nondisclosure.
Plaintiff also contends that the information sought by the Subpoena violates the physician-patient privilege. The Court disagrees for the same reason. The patient-litigant exception to the physician-patient privilege exempts communications “relevant to an issue concerning the condition of the patient” if the patient tenders the issue. (Evid. Code § 996(a).) In determining whether this exception applies, “[a] court must look to what issues have been raised by the litigant who seeks to assert the privilege, including potential defenses to the litigant’s cause of action.” (Karen P. v. Superior Court (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 908, 913.) In this case, Defendants have submitted substantial evidence showing that alcohol may have contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries and, if this point proves true, this alcohol abuse will likely serve as a partial or complete defense to Plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim. Because this Subpoena seeks evidence directly relevant to this defense, the patient-litigant exception applies.
Defendants’ motion to compel compliance with the Subpoena is GRANTED as modified ante.