why doesnt a doctor have to release medical records once they have been subpoenaed?

Question

specifically in california

Answer 1

You may not fully understand the subpoena process, or the particular subpoena at issue. There are different types of subpoenas. A subpoena is not a guarantee that you will receive any documents or information. A subpoena is a process where you allege a right or make a demand for something. The party subpoenaed may object, or a third party may object. There are also limits to what can be subpoenaed.

There are a lot of factors and it is more complex than pushing a button or flipping a switch.

Medical records can get tricky with privacy laws in place. If you are suing a doctor for malpractice and you want to see the records of everyone they have ever treated, that may be fine for your case, but what about the rights of all those other patients. Just because you file a suit does not give you the right to review their medical histories.

Or, if you are suing someone in particular, and you want to see their medical history, often you are required to show why it is relevant. Sometimes even then, the courts will review the records first just to make sure that you are not gaining sensitive and irrelevant information.

Answer 2

Medical records are confidential and any discourse between a patient and a doctor is also confidential. The patient is the only one who can release this confidential information.

Answer 3

That's when they CAN release records (unless they are mental records) and in that case, the patient must sign a release to the court.

Answer 4

They do have to release them- to the Court. They will not be released to anyone else. Failure to do this is called Contempt of Court and is punishable under the law.

Answer 5

Doctor-patient confidentiality.