Modification: Mireskandari v. Gallagher

SHAHROKH MIRESKANDARI,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

LAUREN GALLAGHER, as Executor, etc.,

Defendant and Respondent.

No. D076130

(Super. Ct. No. 37-2015-00029990-CU-FR-CTL)

California Courts of Appeal

Fourth Appellate District

Division One

Filed January 21, 2021

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING

NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

The opinion filed December 30, 2020, is hereby modified as follows:

1. On page 8, at the end of the first full paragraph (after "to the SDT."), add the following new footnote 5 and renumber the remaining footnotes:

In a petition for rehearing, Mireskandari characterizes the basis of his CMIA claim to be "the totally unauthorized disclosure of Mr. Mireskandari's confidential and sensitive protected medical information not only to the opposing party [LSE/SRA], but to assorted third parties, not all of whose identities are known to Mr. Mireskandari." (Italics added.) We disagree. Based on the record, the alleged CMIA violation is limited to Scoma's disclosure of Mireskandari's medical records to the LSE/SRA as part of the SDT proceedings. In the complaint, Mireskandari does not allege that Scoma disclosed the records "to assorted third parties" as he argues on appeal.

2. On page 28, replace the last three sentences of the first full paragraph (beginning with "Mireskandari's claim . . ." and ending prior to the footnote with "Scoma necessarily communicated them.") with the following:

Mireskandari's claim is not that he was damaged by Scoma "fraudulently concealing": he believed he was working only for the LSE/SRA; he would not travel to Los Angeles to conduct a physical examination of Mireskandari because of a prior drunk driving arrest; or he provided his professional opinion without having reviewed Mireskandari's medical records. Similarly, Mireskandari's claim is not that he was damaged by Scoma obtaining Mireskandari's medical records "under false pretenses." Rather, in his appellate briefing Mireskandari expressly tells us that he was damaged when Scoma "forward[ed] them to an unauthorized third party." (Italics added.) Although the complaint does not allege that Scoma forwarded the medical records to anyone other than the LSE/SRA (see fn. 5, ante), even if we assume that Scoma forwarded them to an unauthorized third party, in forwarding the records, Scoma necessarily communicated them.

The paragraph then ends with newly renumbered footnote 19.

3. On page 29, at the very top, delete the first sentence ("Further, Mireskandari makes no attempt . . .") and insert the following sentence:

Further, Mireskandari makes no attempt to allege in the complaint or to explain in his appellate briefing how he might have suffered $500 million in damages as a result of the following arguably noncommunicative acts by Scoma: "fraudulently concealing" either his belief he was working for the LSE/SRA or the reasons he did not want to conduct a physical examination of Mireskandari; or obtaining Mireskandari's medical records "under false pretenses."

Mireskandari's petition for rehearing is denied.

There is no change in judgment.

McCONNELL, P. J.