Cal. Codes » Evidence Code / DIVISION 8. PRIVILEGES / CHAPTER 4. Particular Privileges / ARTICLE 6. Physician-Patient Privilege
California Codes

Cal. Evidence Code § 996 (2026)

Physician-Patient Privilege

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

There is no privilege under this article as to a communication relevant to an issue concerning the condition of the patient if such issue has been tendered by:

(a)The patient;

(b)Any party claiming through or under the patient;

(c)Any party claiming as a beneficiary of the patient through a contract to which the patient is or was a party; or

(d)The plaintiff in an action brought under Section 376 or 377 of the Code of Civil Procedure for damages for the injury or death of the patient.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case: Heller v. Norcal Mut. Ins., 876 P.2d 999 (Cal. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Heller v. Norcal Mut. Ins., 876 P.2d 999 (Cal. 1994). · cites it 6× “Although I would find the particular disclosure inappropriate under the Act, a plaintiff bringing such an action is required to make substantial disclosures regarding medical history during formal and informal discovery.”
Ctr. v. Superior Court, 194 Cal. App. 4th 288 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “(Evid. Code, § 996.) In Pollock v. Superior Court (2001) 93 Cal.”
La Ronda Collins v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cnty., 74 Cal. App. 3d 47 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “) Furthermore, there being no statutory client-litigant exception to the attorney-client privilege, such as exists with respect to the physician-patient and psychotherapist-patient privileges (Evid. Code, §§ 996, 1016), the confidential communications between petitioners, their…”
Oiye v. Fox, 211 Cal. App. 4th 1036 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). “(Evid. Code, §§ 996, 1016; In re Lifschutz (1970) 2 Cal.”
Jones v. Superior Court, 119 Cal. App. 3d 534 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “Code, § 999), or where such issue “has been tendered” by either a “party claiming through or under the patient” (Evid. Code, § 996, subd. (b)), or a “party claiming as a beneficiary of the patient through a contract to which the patient is or was a party .”
Kizer v. Sulnick, 202 Cal. App. 3d 431 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “On this point, there seems some confusion in the discussion in the majority opinion between the pending litigation of the plaintiff residents against the waste facility and the instant investigatory proceeding by the state.”
Kime v. Barnard, 144 Cal. App. 3d 246 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “9 The difficulty with applying the foregoing rationale is that, for reasons of public policy, Evidence Code section 996 specifically establishes an exception to the physician-patient privilege, but, also for policy reasons, there is no similar statutory exception to the…”
Crenshaw v. Mony Life Ins., 318 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2004). “” Cal. Evid.Code § 996 (West 1995). Defendant correctly observes that Dr.”
In Re Lifschutz, 467 P.2d 557 (Cal. 1970). “) 15 The present patient-litigant exception to the physician-patient privilege (Evid. Code, § 996) which parallels the exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege precisely, superseded section 1881, subdivision 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure, the initial…”
Schreiber v. Est. of Kiser, 989 P.2d 720 (Cal. 1999). “” (Evid. Code, § 996; 1 Hogan & Weber, Cal. Civil Discovery, supra, § 8.”
Wilson v. Superior Court, 63 Cal. App. 3d 825 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976). “Code, § 958 [litigant waiver of attorney-client privilege]; Evid. Code, §§ 996, subd. (a), and 1016, subd.”
San Bernardino Cnty. Child. & Fam. Servs. v. A.L., 210 Cal. App. 4th 1457 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). “(Evid. Code, § 996, subd. (a).) “By denying the allegations in the petition, the parent does not tender his or her mental state in issue.”
Show all 28 citing cases →
Cal. Evidence Code § 996(a): 1 case
Mitchell, D.O. Vs. Dist. Ct. (bunting), 2015 NV 21 (Nev. 2015).
Cal. Evidence Code § 996(b): 1 case
In Re the Marriage of Hutchinson, 588 N.W.2d 442 (Iowa 1999).
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.