Pettus v. Cole

Luis Pettus (plaintiff), a DuPont employee, applied for disability leave. Per DuPont’s disability-leave policy, a doctor paid for by DuPont examined Pettus and recommended that Pettus be evaluated by a psychiatrist, Alan Cole (defendant). Cole agreed that Pettus had a medical need for leave from work but also reported to Dupont that Pettus’s stress condition might be connected to alcohol abuse. Dr. Kathleen Unger (defendant), a specialist that DuPont had arranged for Pettus to see, also reported to DuPont that Pettus’s condition could be linked to alcohol abuse. The reports from Cole and DuPont also disclosed general information that Pettus had discussed with them, including Pettus’s medical and family history. Pettus sued Cole and Unger, claiming that he had not authorized them to disclose the contents of the evaluations to DuPont and that these unauthorized disclosures of confidential medical information therefore violated the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and Pettus’s right to privacy under the California Constitution. Cole contended that Pettus was not his patient under the act, because the purpose of his examination was to advise DuPont. Further, Cole and Unger maintained that providing a full psychiatric report was necessary to evaluate Pettus’s disability-leave request. After Pettus presented his evidence, the judge granted judgment for Cole and Unger. Pettus appealed.