What is the test for establishing a cause of action for negligent maintenance or storage of confidential medical records?

³ In the recent decision from the Second Appellate District, Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 549, [163 Cal.Rptr.3d 205], a distinction was drawn between the terms "disclose" and "release." That court concluded that "release" does not require a showing of an affirmative communicative act by a health care provider. It went on to hold that under section 56.36, subdivision (b), as incorporated into section 56.101, more than an allegation of loss of possession by a health care provider is necessary to state a cause of action for negligent maintenance or storage of confidential medical information. What is required, according to Regents, is pleading, and ultimately proving, that the confidential nature of the plaintiff's medical information was breached as a result of the health care provider's negligence. The plaintiff in Regents could not maintain her cause of action because she could not allege that her medical records had, in fact, been viewed by an unauthorized person. The sole issue raised in our case is what constitutes "medical information" so we need not reach the issues decided in Regents. Without expressing an opinion on the matter, we will use the term "release" for the sake of uniformity and convenience.