California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 56.35 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In addition to any other remedies available at law, a patient whose medical information has been used or disclosed in violation of Section 56.10, 56.104, 56.107, or 56.20 or subdivision (a) of Section 56.26 and who has sustained economic loss or personal injury therefrom may recover compensatory damages, punitive damages not to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000), attorney’s fees not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), and the costs of litigation.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case: Garber v. City of Clovis, 698 F. Supp. 2d 1204 (E.D. Cal. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Garber v. City of Clovis, 698 F. Supp. 2d 1204 (E.D. Cal. 2010). · cites it 4× “, pursuant to California Civil Code §§ 56.35 and 56.36 in their capacity as an individual patient whose records have been disclosed to the City of Clovis Police Department and on behalf of the individual patients whose records were in her possession when seized in violation of…”

Francies v. Kapla, 26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 501 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). “2 Civil Code section 56.35 provides for damages under the CMIA as follows, “In addition to any other remedies available at law, a patient whose medical information has been used or disclosed in violation of Section 56.”

Doe v. Santa Cruz-Monterey-Merced Managed Med. Care Com. CA6 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “) Regarding remedies, Civil Code section 56.35 of the CMIA states, “In addition to any other remedies available at law, a patient whose medical information has been used 5 In contrast to section 1032(b), which generally authorizes costs to the prevailing party, the general rule…”

April Kittel v. Advantage Physical Therapy (9th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “To the extent Kittel argued that California Civil Code section 56.35 entitled her to damages for a violation of section 123120, any error by the district court in failing to expressly address this was harmless because the argument fails.”

Zazueta-Lara v. Cnty. of Sonoma CA1/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “” (Civ. Code, § 56.35.) Section 56.35—under which plaintiffs request damages in their complaints—provides that “a patient 5 This cause of action is identical in both plaintiff Felix’s and Besanceney’s complaints.”

Roller v. Brady CA4/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023). “(Civ. Code, § 56.35.) The CMIA defines “patient” as “a natural person, whether or not still living, who received health care services from a provider of health care and to whom medical information pertains.”

Franklin v. City of Kingsburg (E.D. Cal. 2022). “21 Civ. Code § 56.35. This law also appears to apply to public entities.”

(PC) Roberson v. Dept. of State Hospitals-Coalinga (E.D. Cal. 2023). “Analysis 2 As noted above, plaintiff alleges that defendants, including Gonzalez, unlawfully shared 3 his personal information during an exchange of emails, thereby violating his rights under state 4 law—California Civil Code § 56.35 and § 1798.”

(PC) Fletcher v. Dept. of State Hospitals-Coalinga (E.D. Cal. 2023). “Plaintiff’s action is based on 16 Defendants’ violations of California Civil Code Section 56.35 and 1798.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.