In Heller v. Norcal Mutual Ins. Co. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 30, the plaintiff developed serious medical problems after Doctors Geis and Yamaguchi removed a bone spur from her left hand. She brought a malpractice claim against Geis and, during the litigation phase of that lawsuit, Yamaguchi disclosed her private patient information to the insurer who represented both doctors. After the malpractice claim against Geis was resolved, the plaintiff brought a second malpractice action against Yamaguchi and also alleged violations of section 56.10(a) and the constitutional right to privacy based on the disclosures that Yamaguchi had made during the first malpractice case. The Heller court held that both the Confidentiality Act and constitutional claims were properly dismissed pursuant to a demurrer. The court found that Yamaguchi's disclosures were expressly authorized by section 56.10(c)(4) and, consistent with our analysis above, also found that, "should the Legislature deem it necessary to further limit access to a plaintiff's medical condition, it is free to do so by amendment." (Heller, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 42.) The Heller court also found that the plaintiff's constitutional privacy claim failed as a matter of law because she failed to allege facts to support a conclusion that "any expectation of privacy as to her medical condition would be reasonable under the circumstances of the case." (Heller, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 43.) The court reasoned that by placing one's "physical condition in issue" via medical malpractice litigation, a person has his or her "expectation of privacy regarding that condition ... substantially lowered by the very nature of the action." (Id. at p. 43.) In Heller v. Norcal Mutual Ins. Co. (1994) the plaintiff initiated a medical malpractice lawsuit. One of the doctors who had treated the plaintiff's condition was designated as an expert witness for the defense. To assist with the defense, the doctor held ex parte conversations with the defendants' insurance carrier, while he was still the plaintiff's treating physician, regarding the plaintiff's medical condition and prognosis. (Heller, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 36.) After settling the malpractice lawsuit, the plaintiff sued the treating doctor and the insurance company for invasion of privacy because the doctor "secretly disclosed her confidential information." (Id. at pp. 36, 42.) On appeal, the court affirmed the order sustaining the defendants' demurrers on two grounds. The court held that, because the information given to the carrier by the defense expert would "inevitably" be divulged in the course of discovery, the plaintiff could not reasonably expect to retain any right to privacy with respect to that information and the disclosures were not "sufficiently serious in their scope or impact to give rise to an actionable invasion of privacy." (Id. at p. 44.) The Heller plaintiff prosecuted a medical malpractice action against one treating physician and then sued another physician, not a party to the first action, for invasion of privacy and other relief. Apparently the defendant in the second action had disclosed confidential medical information to the malpractice insurer. Our Supreme Court held that by placing her physical condition at issue in the medical malpractice litigation, the plaintiff's expectation of privacy was "substantially lowered." (Id. at p. 43.) Under these circumstances, and as a matter of law, her privacy claim failed because she could not plead facts supporting a conclusion that any expectation of privacy regarding her medical condition would be reasonable. (Ibid.)