psychotherapist-patient privilege in Massachusetts

2003In Commonwealth v. Lamb, 365 Mass. 265 (1974), this court concluded that the psychotherapist-patient privilege applied to a sexually dangerous person proceeding.

1977Commonwealth v. Lamb, supra, did not erect a comprehensive exclusionary rule for all reports and records gathered by the treatment center, but rather called for particularized suppression of those confidential communications protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege established by G.

2018See Commonwealth v. Oliveira , 438 Mass. 325 , 331, 780 N.E.2d 453 (2002) ("some action by the patient or client is necessary to 'exercise' the privilege"); Mass. G.

2018See Commonwealth v. Oliveira , 438 Mass. 325 , 331, 780 N.E.2d 453 (2002) ("some action by the patient or client is necessary to 'exercise' the privilege"); Mass. G.

2013Moreover, the psychotherapist-patient privilege “does not protect the existence of the fact of a hospital admission, the dates of hospitalization or even the purpose of the admission.” Commonwealth v. Clancy, 402 Mass. 664, 667 (1988).

2003The purpose of the psychotherapist-patient privilege statute is to “protect justifiable expectations of confidentiality that people who seek psychotherapeutic help have a right to expect.” Commonwealth v. Clancy, 402 Mass. 664, 667 (1988), citing Usen v. Usen, 359 Mass. 453, 457 (1971).

2023See Johnstone, petitioner, 453 Mass. 544, 552 (2009) (refusal to be interviewed is "effectively penalized" in commitment proceedings).

2019L. c. 233, § 20B, or the privilege against self-incrimination, but doing so precludes the petitioner from offering the opinion of his [or her] own expert at trial." Johnstone , supra at 552 , 903 N.E.2d 1074 .

2018See Commonwealth v. Vega , 449 Mass. 227 , 230, 866 N.E.2d 892 (2007).

2018See Commonwealth v. Vega , 449 Mass. 227 , 230, 866 N.E.2d 892 (2007).

2018See Commonwealth v. Brandwein , 435 Mass. 623 , 630 n.8, 760 N.E.2d 724 (2002).

2018See Commonwealth v. Brandwein , 435 Mass. 623 , 630 n.8, 760 N.E.2d 724 (2002).

2018See Robinson v. Commonwealth , 399 Mass. 131 , 135, 503 N.E.2d 31 (1987) (that some information patient communicated to psychiatrist was later repeated to others is irrelevant for purposes of waiver analysis).

2018See Robinson v. Commonwealth , 399 Mass. 131 , 135, 503 N.E.2d 31 (1987) (that some information patient communicated to psychiatrist was later repeated to others is irrelevant for purposes of waiver analysis).

2012Although the record does not describe the sex offender treatment the defendant was offered, the consent forms he was asked to sign describe it as a form of psychological therapy, including group therapy, conducted by a “sex offender therapist.” In Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 12, 15 (1996), the Supreme Court recognized a psychotherapist-patient privilege, joining the fifty States and the District of Columbia in doing so, and extended the privilege to include licensed social workers who provide psychotherapy.

2012The Court recognized the importance of confidentiality to clinical therapy, noting the “wide agreement that confidentiality is a sine qua non for successful psychiatric treatment.” Id. at 10 , quoting Advisory Committee’s Notes to Proposed Rules, 56 F.R.D. 183 , 242 (1972).

2012See Board of Registration in Med. v. Doe, 457 Mass. 738, 742 (2010).

2010L. c. 233, § 20B, and the Massachusetts common law of privacy, see Alberts v. Devine, 395 Mass. 59, 67-68 (1985).

2010He argues that Massachusetts privacy law prohibits disclosure of the records, see Alberts v. Devine, 395 Mass. 59, 67-68 (1985), and that the subpoena is invalid on other grounds.

2009Cf. Commonwealth v. Kobrin, 395 Mass. 284, 285 (1985) (psychiatrist obtained “written invocations of the psychiatrist-patient privilege”).

2003The purpose of the psychotherapist-patient privilege statute is to “protect justifiable expectations of confidentiality that people who seek psychotherapeutic help have a right to expect.” Commonwealth v. Clancy, 402 Mass. 664, 667 (1988), citing Usen v. Usen, 359 Mass. 453, 457 (1971).

2003Commonwealth v. Rosenberg, 410 Mass. 347, 353 (1991) (The Court declined to apply the privilege to psychologist who has a doctoral degree in education, not in the field of psychology.

2001Brooks v. Holden, 175 Mass. 137, 141 (1900), District Attorney for Norfolk District v. Magraw, 417 Mass. 169, 172 (1994).

2001Brooks v. Holden, 175 Mass. 137, 141 (1900), District Attorney for Norfolk District v. Magraw, 417 Mass. 169, 172 (1994).

2000See also In re Subpoena Served Upon Zuniga, 714 F.2d 632, 640 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 983 (1983) (“as a general rule, the identity of a patient or the fact and time of his treatment does not fall within the scope of the psychotherapist-patient privilege”); Santelli v. Electro-Motive, 188 F.R.D. 306, 310 (N.D.

2000See also In re Subpoena Served Upon Zuniga, 714 F.2d 632, 640 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 983 (1983) (“as a general rule, the identity of a patient or the fact and time of his treatment does not fall within the scope of the psychotherapist-patient privilege”); Santelli v. Electro-Motive, 188 F.R.D. 306, 310 (N.D.

2000See also In re Subpoena Served Upon Zuniga, 714 F.2d 632, 640 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 983 (1983) (“as a general rule, the identity of a patient or the fact and time of his treatment does not fall within the scope of the psychotherapist-patient privilege”); Santelli v. Electro-Motive, 188 F.R.D. 306, 310 (N.D.

2000Ill. 1999) (psychotherapist privilege does not prevent disclosure of date of treatment or identity of psychotherapists); Vanderbilt v. Chilmark, 174 F.R.D. 225, 230 (D.

1998The psychotherapist-patient privilege is designed “to protect ‘the justifiable expectations of confidentiality that most individuals seeking psychotherapeutic treatment harbor.’ ’’ Petition of the Dept. of Social Services to Dispense with Consent to Adoption, 399 Mass. 279, 287 (1987) (citations omitted). 7 The defendants’ assertion of the privilege in this case in order to satisfy those expectations of confidentiality cannot be equated to the failure or refusal to call an available witness who might be expected to offer favorable evidence, 8 as the plaintiffs argue, or to the assertion of the

1994See Commonwealth v. Stockhammer, 409 Mass. 867, 883 (1991); Commonwealth v. Two Juveniles, 397 Mass. 261, 265-266 (1986).

1994The judge balanced the complainant’s psychotherapist-patient privilege in favor of the defendant’s right to confrontation, and his ruling in respect to that privilege did not change; the defendant’s expert witness would be allowed to testify, on the basis of the psychiatric records but without reference to the prior rape, as to the complainant’s ability to perceive, to recollect, and whether she “has been out of touch with reality either through hallucinating or by hearing voices.” Defense counsel stated that, in light of this ruling, he would not call his expert witness whose testimony would

1994See Commonwealth v. Stockhammer, 409 Mass. 867, 883 (1991); Commonwealth v. Two Juveniles, 397 Mass. 261, 265-266 (1986).

1993Cf. Allison v. Allison, 15 Ohio St. 2d 44, 49 (1968) (executor was the holder of confidential information protected by the attorney-client and physician-patient privileges of the deceased client-patient).