§ 1.  Recognition of the Privilege.

The federal courts have adopted a psychiatrist-patient privilege as a matter of federal common law.{footnote} [3409]Jaffee v. Redmond, __ S.Ct. __ (1996); In re Doe, 964 F.2d 1325 (2d Cir. 1992); United States v. Snelenberger, 24 F.3d 799 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 433 (1994); In re Zuniga, 714 F.2d 632 (6th Cir. 1983).{/footnote}  Proposed FRE 504, which would have created a statutory privilege,{footnote} [3410]Rules of Evidence for United States Courts and Magistrates, 56 F.R.D. 183, 230-58 (1972)(proposed FRE 504).{/footnote} was rejected by Congress along with a number of other specific privilege rules in favor of a general rule granting federal courts discretion to recognize privileges "in the light of reason and experience."{footnote} [3411]FRE 501.  See also Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 [(____)](Rule 501 requires federal courts to "continue the evolutionar developmen of testimonial privileges).{/footnote}  See PRIVILEGES § 1.

A psychotherapist-patient privilege is recognized in every state [South Carolina?{footnote} [3412]S.C.Code Ann. §§ 44-115-10 to 44-115-150 (Law. Co-op. Supp. 1993) (recognizing a privilege for patient records but mentioning nothing specific about psychiatric or psychological records){/footnote}Texas?{footnote} [3413]Tex. Civ. Code Ann. 4495b, § 5.08 (West. Supp. 1994)(physician-patient privilege).{/footnote}].   Many states have adopted the propsed FRE 504,{footnote} [3414]Alaska R. Evid. 504 (1995); Alaska Stat. ‘ 08.86.200 (1991); Ark. Code Ann. § 17-96-105 (Michie 1992); Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1010-26  (West 1994); Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 52-146(c) to 52-145(o) (1991); Delaware Uniform R. Evid. 503 (1991); D.C. Code Ann. § 14-307 (1989); Fla. Stat. § 90.503 (1994); Haw. Rev. Stat. & 33-626, Rule 504.1 (1985); Ind. Code Ann. § 25-33-1-17 (Burns 1995); Me. R. Evid. 503 (West 1994); Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 9-109 (1989); Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 233 § 20B (Law. Co-op. Supp. 1995); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 330.1750 (West 1992); N.M. Evid. Ann. 11-504 (Michie 1994); N.D. R. Evid. 503 (1994); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, ? 2503 (West 1993); Or. Rev. State. § 40.230 (1988); R.I. Gen. Law §§ 5-37.3-4 (1987 & Supp. 1993); Wis. Stat. Ann. § 905.04 (West 1993); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 33-27-103 (1994).{/footnote} but most have enacted their own statutory pribilege rule in one form or another.{footnote} [3415]Ala. Code § 34-26-2 (1991); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 32-2085 (1992);  & Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann.  § 12-43-214 (1995)(privilege extends to information gained during therapy); Ga. Code Ann. § 43-39-16 (1994); Idaho Code § 54-2314 (1994);  Ill. Code 740 ILCS 110/1-110/17 (1994); Iowa Code § 622.10 (West. Supp. 1994) (psychologists within scope of physician-patient privilege); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 74-5323 (1992);  & Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 421.215, 422A.0507 (Baldwin 1988); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13:3734 (West 1991) (psychologists within scope of physician-patient privilege); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 595.02(g) (West 1988); Miss. Code Ann. § 73-31-29 (1989); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 337.055 (1989); Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-807 (1993); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-504 (1994) (psychologists within scope of physician-patient privilege); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 49.215 to 49.265 (Michie 1986)(psychologists within scope of physician-patient privilege); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 330-A.19 (1984)(privilege may be set aside where information is essential to case); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 45:14B-28 (West 1978); N.Y. Civ. Prac. L. & R. 4507 (McKinney 1992); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-53.3 (Supp. 1987) (privilege applies except in cases of child abuse and except cases where disclosure "necessary to a proper administration of justice"); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4732.19 (Baldwin 1991); 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5944 (West 1982); S.C. Code Ann. § 44-22-90 (Law. Co-op. 1993);S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 19-13-7 (1987); Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-1-207 (Supp. 1994)(privilege inapplicable where patient’s mental condition at issue); Utah Code Ann. ’58-61-602 (Supp. 1994); Utah R. Evid. 506 (1994); Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-400.2 (Michie 1994) (privilege applies only to civil cases and is subject to court’s discretion); Wash. Rev. Code Ann § 18.83.110 (West 1989); W. Va. Code § 27-3-1 (1994).

            See Anne D. Lamkin, Should Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege Be Recognized?, 18 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 721, 723-25 (1995)(summarizing the variations among states).{/footnote}

  In those states, communications between patient and psychotherapist in connection with diagnosis or treatment are privileged.  In South Carolina,{footnote} [3416]{/footnote}
Persons who participated in the sessions, such as family members, may be prevented by the patient from testifying, as may the psychotherapist.{footnote} [3417]  Cal. sec. 1014; Ellis v. Ellis, 472 S.W.2d 741 (Tenn. 1971).  {/footnote}

Proceedings Where the Privilege is Applicable

Unlike the physician-patient privilege, the psychotherapist privilege applies to criminal as well as civil litigation.  The patient need not be a party to assert the privilege.  The privilege does not apply to cases where the physician is recommending commitment{footnote} [3418]  Cal. sec. 1024 (patient must be danger to self or others).{/footnote} or where the physician has conducted a court-ordered examination. 

Members of the Privileged Relationship

The privilege generally applies not only to psychiatrists, but also to psychologists{footnote} [3419]Jaffee v. Redmond, __ S.Ct. __ (1996).
            Cal. sec. 1010; ; Novak v. Rathman, 106 Ill. 2d 478, 478 N.E.2d 1334 (1985).
            But see Ill. Rev. Stat. ch 735 para. 5/8-802 (1992) (physician-patient privilege includes psychiatrists but not psychologists); Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-1-207 (Supp. 1994) (privilege extends to psychiatrists and persons licensed to practice medicine); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 1612 (Supp. 1994) (privilege extends to persons authorized to practice medicine and mental health professionals, but no specific provision for psychologists); W. Va. Code Ann. § 30-31-13 (1993) (privilege extends to licensed professional counselors, which may include psychologists).
            CHECK Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111, & 5355{/footnote} and social workers engaged in psychotherapy.{footnote}Jaffee v. Redmond, __ S.Ct. __ (1996).
             Cal. Evid. Code § 1010 (West 1994); Fla. Stat. ch. 90.503 (1994); Ill. Rev. Stat. 740 ILCS 110/1-110/2 (1994); Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-400.2 (Michie 1994). {/footnote}

Standing to Assert

The privilege is personal to patients and generally may only be asserted by patients or their representatives.  In the patient’s absence, the privilege may be asserted by the psychotherapist on behalf of the patient.{footnote} [3421]  Cal. sec. 1015.{/footnote}

Waiver

A patient will be deemed to have waived the privilege if they make their mental condition an issue in the case.{footnote} [3422]Cal. sec. 1016; Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-1-207 (Supp. 1994)(privilege inapplicable where patient’s mental condition at issue).{/footnote}  The waiver extends only to the specific mental condition which has been placed into issue, and in some states extends only to the communications made to the psychotherapist who the patient has testify.  Waiver has also been found where a psychologist had been called to testify by the patient in a prior proceeding.{footnote}Novak v. Rathman, 106 Ill. 2d 478, 478 N.E.2d 1334 (1985).{/footnote}

Threat of Harm to Others

Some courts hold that where a psychotherapist learns that a patient is a threat to someone, the psychotherapist may warn that person, and indeed may be under a legal duty to do so.{footnote}Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425 (1976).{/footnote}

Attorney-Client Privilege

The attorney-client privilege will in some cases extend to communications between a client and a psychiatrist hired by the client’s attorney but not called to testify.{footnote}People v. Knuckles, No. 2-90-0893 (2d Dist. Ill.)(psychiatrist hired by criminal defendant but not called to testify).{/footnote}  See also ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE: Members of the Privileged Relationship.

Bibilography

Anne D. Lamkin, Should Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege Be Recognized?, 18 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 721 (1995).
Bruce J. Winick, The Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege: A Therapeutic Jurisprudence View, 50 U. Miami L. Rev. 249 (1996).
Related Articles

PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE; SEXUAL ASSAULT–Victim-Counselor Privilege; SOCIAL WORKER-CLIENT PRIVILEGE.