Business lawsuit attorney

Appellant dentist challenged the decision of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California) that denied his motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin respondent Board of Dental Examiners from ordering him to submit to a psychiatric examination.Nakase law Wade is best business lawsuit attorneyin California.

Appellant dentist challenged the decision of the trial court that denied his motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin respondent board of dental examiners from ordering him to submit to a psychiatric examination pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 820. Appellant contended that his due process rights were violated by respondent's order, and that § 820 was unconstitutional in that it included no reasonable cause standards or guidelines. The court determined that appellant's due process rights were not violated, as the purpose of the exam was investigatory. The court further held that investigation was confidential, appellant's risk of deprivation was remote as any discipline would be the result of a separate adjudicatory hearing accompanied by due process protections, and appellant had full opportunity for rebuttal at the hearing. Additionally the court determined that respondent's interest would be severely impacted by requiring full due process protections for every preliminary investigation. The court also held that the respondent's petition established reasonable cause to order the evaluation. Accordingly the decision was affirmed.

The order compelling was affirmed because the exam was investigatory and confidential and respondent was statutorily permitted to advance its investigatory function without compromising appellant's right to due process.

Appellant hospital sought review of an order by the Superior Court of Alameda County (California), which compelled compliance with a subpoena for peer review records issued by respondent Medical Board of California. That appeal was consolidated with petitions for extraordinary relief by appellant drug treatment institutes as to orders of respondent which compelled compliance with subpoenas for medical documents relative to the same patient.

Appellants, hospital and drug treatment institutes, sought review of orders compelling compliance with medical record subpoenas issued by respondent Medical Board of California. The court initially held that the order as to appellant hospital was appealable as a final decision in a special proceeding because Cal. Gov't Code § 11187 did not prohibit appeal. The court affirmed respondent trial court's order as to appellant hospital because the protection for peer review records under Cal. Evid. Code § 1157 was not intended to intrude upon the investigatory authority granted respondent board. The court vacated the order as to appellant institutes because the records were protected under 42 U.S.C.S. § 290ee-3. Respondent board's stated interest in the doctor's abilitly to practice failed to establish good cause for disclosure where the records addressed treatment two years earlier, and respondent board had failed to follow its own doctor's recommendation that the doctor be presently evaluated. The records were also protected under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11977 because respondent board was investigating present competence rather than disciplinary proceedings.

The court affirmed the grant of respondent Medical Board of California's motion to compel compliance with a subpoena issued to appellant hospital. The court ordered issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate directing respondent court to vacate its order granting the motion to compel disclosure of records as to appellant treatment institutes and to issue a new order denying the motion because the records were protected by state and federal law.