Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2085 (2026)

Confidential communications

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The confidential relations and communication between a client or patient and a psychologist licensed pursuant to this chapter, including temporary licensees, are placed on the same basis as those provided by law between an attorney and client. Unless the client or patient waives the psychologist-client privilege in writing or in court testimony, a psychologist shall not voluntarily or involuntarily divulge information that is received by reason of the confidential nature of the psychologist's practice. The psychologist shall divulge to the board information it requires in connection with any investigation, public hearing or other proceeding. The psychologist-client privilege does not extend to cases in which the psychologist has a duty to report information as required by law.

B. The psychologist shall ensure that client or patient records and communications are treated by clerical and paraprofessional staff at the same level of confidentiality and privilege required of the psychologist.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 35 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2022 · leading case: Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 8× “See A.R.S. § 32-2085(A) (1992 & Supp.1998); State v.”

Bain v. Super. Ct. in & for Maricopa Cty., 714 P.2d 824 (Ariz. 1986). · cites it 11× “Petitioner, Judy Bain, brings this special action challenging an order of the trial court requiring her to produce records of her treatment by a psychologist in 1980, despite her claim of privilege under A.R.S. § 32-2085. Petitioner claims that the status of the…”

Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996). · cites it 2× “504; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 32-2085 (1992); Ark.”

State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court, 836 P.2d 445 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “A physician or surgeon, without consent of his patient, as to any information acquired in attending the patient which was necessary to enable him to prescribe or act for the patient.”

Blazek v. Superior Court, 869 P.2d 509 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 5× “A patient consents to disclosure of privileged information by (1) expressly waiving the privilege in writing or in open court testimony, AR.S. § 32-2085; or (2) pursuing a course of conduct which is inconsistent with the observance of the privilege, such as by placing the…”

State v. Stotts, 695 P.2d 1110 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 4× “Appellant has made no claim of privilege pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2085 (privileged communications between a certified psychologist and patient).”

State v. Connor, 161 P.3d 596 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “.. without consent of the physician’s patient, as to any information acquired in attending the patient which was necessary to enable the physician .”

R.S./s.E. v. Hon. thompson/teddy Vanders, 485 P.3d 1068 (Ariz. 2021). · cites it 2× “§ 13-4062(4) (prohibiting examination of “[a] physician or surgeon, without consent of the physician’s or surgeon’s patient, as to any information acquired in attending the patient which was necessary to enable the physician or surgeon to prescribe or act for the patient”);…”

Ulibarri v. Superior Ct. Cty. of Coconino, 909 P.2d 449 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “" Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 32-2085 . [2] Gerstenberger did nothing wrong in contacting Michael.”

Catrone v. Miles, 160 P.3d 1204 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “2d 824, 826 (1986) (denying motion to compel discovery of records from sessions with psychologist pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2085 (2002) (psychologist-patient privilege)).”

State v. Kellywood, 433 P.3d 1205 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “§ 13-4062(4) (physician-patient privilege); A.R.S. § 32-2085(A) (psychologist-patient privilege).”

Styers v. Superior Court in & for Cty. of Mohave, 779 P.2d 352 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 6× “Husband claims, and we agree, that the records are privileged under A.R.S. § 32-2085 or § 12-2235 and are irrelevant to any issue appropriate to the dissolution of the parties’ marriage.”

Show all 35 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2085(A) — 9 cases

Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). “See A.R.S. § 32-2085(A) (1992 & Supp.1998); State v.”

R.S./s.E. v. Hon. thompson/teddy Vanders, 485 P.3d 1068 (Ariz. 2021). “§ 13-4062(4) (prohibiting examination of “[a] physician or surgeon, without consent of the physician’s or surgeon’s patient, as to any information acquired in attending the patient which was necessary to enable the physician or surgeon to prescribe or act for the patient”);…”

State v. Kellywood, 433 P.3d 1205 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 13-4062(4) (physician-patient privilege); A.R.S. § 32-2085(A) (psychologist-patient privilege).”

Johnson v. O'Connor, 327 P.3d 218 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).

Petrone Cabanas v. Hon. pineda/state, 433 P.3d 560 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2085(B) — 1 case

Blazek v. Superior Court, 869 P.2d 509 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “A patient consents to disclosure of privileged information by (1) expressly waiving the privilege in writing or in open court testimony, AR.S. § 32-2085; or (2) pursuing a course of conduct which is inconsistent with the observance of the privilege, such as by placing the…”

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.