16 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 1995–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In re T.B.green2 sentences2014A panel of this Court determined that statements of a juvenile made to a mental health professional while in treatment remain privileged under the psychotherapist-patient privilege and may be released to SOAB only with the See In the Interest of T.B., A Minor, 75 A.3d 485, 496 (Pa. Super. 2013). 2013Recently, in In the Interest of T.B., 2013 PA Super 150 , 75 A.3d 485 (Pa.Super.2013), we reiterated that “statements of a juvenile made to a mental health professional while in treatment remain privileged and may be released to the SOAB only with the juvenile’s written consent.” In so doing, we reaffirmed “the conclusion we reached in Carter that record access by the SOAB remains subject to the psychotherapist-patient privilege.” Id. at 496. | 3 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Flynngreen2 sentences2020In the Interest of: J.M.G. 476 MDA 2017, at *5 (citing Commonwealth v. Flynn, 460 A.2d 816, 823 (Pa. Super. 1983)). 2018See Commonwealth v. Flynn, 460 A.2d 816, 823 (Pa. Super. 1983) (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Zane v. Friends Hospitalgreen2 sentences2009Compare Commonwealth v. Moody, 843 A.2d 402, 406 (Pa.Super.2004) (opinions, observations, and diagnoses are not protected by privilege of confidential communications between psychotherapist and patient) with Zone v. Friends Hospital, 575 Pa. 236, 247 , 836 A.2d 25, 32 (2003) (under § 7111(a) ah documents regarding treatment, not just medical records, shall be kept confidential). ¶ 11 In rejecting Mother’s attempt to invoke the psychotherapist-patient privilege pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5944, the trial court reasoned, inter alia, that the documents Father requested were not communications betwee 2009Compare Commonwealth v. Moody, 843 A.2d 402, 406 (Pa.Super.2004) (opinions, observations, and diagnoses are not protected by privilege of confidential communications between psychotherapist and patient) with Zone v. Friends Hospital, 575 Pa. 236, 247 , 836 A.2d 25, 32 (2003) (under § 7111(a) ah documents regarding treatment, not just medical records, shall be kept confidential). ¶ 11 In rejecting Mother’s attempt to invoke the psychotherapist-patient privilege pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5944, the trial court reasoned, inter alia, that the documents Father requested were not communications betwee | 2 | 2 |
Chapman v. Californiared1 sentence2020In concluding to the contrary, the majority reasons that, “[s]imilar to the types of constitutional errors the United States Supreme Court has deemed so basic to a fair trial that application of the harmless error doctrine is inappropriate, we deem scrupulous adherence to the psychotherapist-patient privilege to be basic to fair Act 21 proceedings.” Majority Opinion at 18 (citing Chapman v. Cal., 386 U.S. 18, 23 (1967) (holding that “there are some constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error”)). | 1 | 1 |
In Re: Vencil, N. Appeal of: PA State Policegreen1 sentence2020In re Vencil, 152 A.3d 235, 241 (Pa. 2017). 11 J.M.G. includes an additional section of his brief urging this Court to adopt the holding in T.B. that the psychotherapist-patient privilege is applicable to Act 21 proceedings, precluding admissibility of such privileged communications. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Moodygreen1 sentence2009Compare Commonwealth v. Moody, 843 A.2d 402, 406 (Pa.Super.2004) (opinions, observations, and diagnoses are not protected by privilege of confidential communications between psychotherapist and patient) with Zone v. Friends Hospital, 575 Pa. 236, 247 , 836 A.2d 25, 32 (2003) (under § 7111(a) ah documents regarding treatment, not just medical records, shall be kept confidential). ¶ 11 In rejecting Mother’s attempt to invoke the psychotherapist-patient privilege pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5944, the trial court reasoned, inter alia, that the documents Father requested were not communications betwee | 1 | 1 |
Wertz v. Chapman Townshipgreen2 sentences2006See Wertz v. Chapman Township, 559 Pa. 630, 633 , 741 A.2d 1272, 1274 (1999) (“It is axiomatic that if an issue can be resolved on a non-constitutional basis, that is the more jurisprudentially sound path to follow.”). 2006See Wertz v. Chapman Township, 559 Pa. 630, 633 , 741 A.2d 1272, 1274 (1999) (“It is axiomatic that if an issue can be resolved on a non-constitutional basis, that is the more jurisprudentially sound path to follow.”). | 1 | 1 |
Rost v. State Board of Psychologygreen1 sentence2006Rost v. State Board of Psychology, 659 A.2d 626, 629 (Pa. Commw. 1995) (discussing the psy chiatrist/psy chologist-patient privilege), appeal denied, 543 Pa. 699 , 670 A.2d 145 (1995); Nicholaides v. Weber, 133 Pitts. | 1 | 1 |
Kalenevitch v. Fingergreen2 sentences1996See Kalenevitch v. Finger, 407 Pa.Super. 431 , 595 A.2d 1224 (1991) (holding that the importance of keeping the psychotherapist-patient privilege confidential warrants the privilege’s extension to protect communications made to agents of the licensed psychologist or psychiatrist); Commonwealth v. Kyle, 367 Pa.Super. 484 , 533 A.2d 120 (1987) (explaining how the privilege afforded by § 5944 was intended to inspire confidence in the client and encourage full disclosure to the psychologist which serves the public interest in promoting a society in which the general well-being of the citizenry is 1996See Kalenevitch v. Finger, 407 Pa.Super. 431 , 595 A.2d 1224 (1991) (holding that the importance of keeping the psychotherapist-patient privilege confidential warrants the privilege’s extension to protect communications made to agents of the licensed psychologist or psychiatrist); Commonwealth v. Kyle, 367 Pa.Super. 484 , 533 A.2d 120 (1987) (explaining how the privilege afforded by § 5944 was intended to inspire confidence in the client and encourage full disclosure to the psychologist which serves the public interest in promoting a society in which the general well-being of the citizenry is | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Fewellgreen2 sentences1995We note that a panel of this Court ruled in the companion criminal case, Commonwealth v. Fewell, 439 Pa.Super. 541 , 654 A.2d 1109 (1995), that Dr. Besner breached the psychotherapist-patient privilege by revealing Appellant’s confidential communication that she intentionally suffocated her infant son. 1995We note that a panel of this Court ruled in the companion criminal case, Commonwealth v. Fewell, 439 Pa.Super. 541 , 654 A.2d 1109 (1995), that Dr. Besner breached the psychotherapist-patient privilege by revealing Appellant’s confidential communication that she intentionally suffocated her infant son. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jaffee v. Redmond
green
2 sentences2006An uncertain privilege, or one which purports to be certain but results in widely varying applications by the courts, is little better than no privilege at all.’ ” Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 17-18 , 116 S.Ct. 1923, 1932 , 135 L.Ed. 2d 337 (1996) (recognizing the psychotherapist-patient privilege for the first time) (quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 393 , 101 S.Ct. 677, 684 , 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981)). 2006An uncertain privilege, or one which purports to be certain but results in widely varying applications by the courts, is little better than no privilege at all.’ ” Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 17-18 , 116 S.Ct. 1923, 1932 , 135 L.Ed. 2d 337 (1996) (recognizing the psychotherapist-patient privilege for the first time) (quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 393 , 101 S.Ct. 677, 684 , 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981)). | 4 | 1998–2020 |
Green Party of Pennsylvania v. Department of State Bureau of Commissions, Elections & Legislation
green
1 sentence2024See In the Interest of J.M.G., supra (applying Chapman to determine if violation of the psychotherapist-patient privilege in juvenile civil commitment hearings was subject to a harmless error analysis); In re Adoption of L.B.M., 161 A.3d 172 (Pa. 2017) (holding that trial court’s error in failing to appoint counsel for the children in an involuntary termination of parental rights case was a structural error as defined in Fulminante). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Fisher, H. v. Erie Insurance Exchange
green
1 sentence2022Id. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5944, the psychotherapist-patient privilege, provides: No psychiatrist or person who has been licensed under the Act of March 23, 1972 (P.L. 136, No. 52) to practice psychology shall be, without the written consent of his client, examined in any civil or criminal matter as to any information acquired in the course of his professional services on behalf of such client. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Commonwealth v. Story
green
1 sentence2021The psychotherapist-patient privilege in Section 5944 does not apply to opinions, observations, diagnosis, and ____________________________________________ 2 Under Story, an error is prejudicial “only if the appellate court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the error is harmless.” Id. at 162 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Commonwealth v. Santiago
green
1 sentence2020With respect to Appellant’s second issue, the record confirms that Appellant had “plenty of time” to prepare for trial and “was not prejudiced” by the court’s requirement that his expert, Dr. Cooke, disclose the data; further, we agree with the trial court that “by placing his mental health in issue . . . [Appellant] waived the psychotherapist-patient privilege.” Trial Court Opinion, 3/27/19, at 18, citing Commonwealth v. Santiago, 855 A.2d 682 (Pa. 2004) (defendant waived privilege by pursuing insanity defense). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Commonwealth v. Simmons
green
1 sentence2011This court held that the trial court’s order was not appealable as a collateral order, distinguishing Commonwealth v. Miller, 406 Pa.Super. 206 , 593 A.2d 1308 (1991) (alleged sexual assault victim’s records in possession of rape crisis center), and Commonwealth v. Simmons, 719 A.2d 336 (Pa.Super.1998) (treatment facility documents protected from disclosure by the psychotherapist-patient privilege): Like Miller , the instant case presents us with a situation where files of an allegedly confidential nature are' being sought from a third party. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Commonwealth v. Miller
green
2 sentences2011This court held that the trial court’s order was not appealable as a collateral order, distinguishing Commonwealth v. Miller, 406 Pa.Super. 206 , 593 A.2d 1308 (1991) (alleged sexual assault victim’s records in possession of rape crisis center), and Commonwealth v. Simmons, 719 A.2d 336 (Pa.Super.1998) (treatment facility documents protected from disclosure by the psychotherapist-patient privilege): Like Miller , the instant case presents us with a situation where files of an allegedly confidential nature are' being sought from a third party. 2011This court held that the trial court’s order was not appealable as a collateral order, distinguishing Commonwealth v. Miller, 406 Pa.Super. 206 , 593 A.2d 1308 (1991) (alleged sexual assault victim’s records in possession of rape crisis center), and Commonwealth v. Simmons, 719 A.2d 336 (Pa.Super.1998) (treatment facility documents protected from disclosure by the psychotherapist-patient privilege): Like Miller , the instant case presents us with a situation where files of an allegedly confidential nature are' being sought from a third party. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Upjohn Co. v. United States
green
2 sentences2006An uncertain privilege, or one which purports to be certain but results in widely varying applications by the courts, is little better than no privilege at all.’ ” Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 17-18 , 116 S.Ct. 1923, 1932 , 135 L.Ed. 2d 337 (1996) (recognizing the psychotherapist-patient privilege for the first time) (quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 393 , 101 S.Ct. 677, 684 , 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981)). 2006An uncertain privilege, or one which purports to be certain but results in widely varying applications by the courts, is little better than no privilege at all.’ ” Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 17-18 , 116 S.Ct. 1923, 1932 , 135 L.Ed. 2d 337 (1996) (recognizing the psychotherapist-patient privilege for the first time) (quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 393 , 101 S.Ct. 677, 684 , 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981)). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Commonwealth v. Kyle
green
2 sentences1996See Kalenevitch v. Finger, 407 Pa.Super. 431 , 595 A.2d 1224 (1991) (holding that the importance of keeping the psychotherapist-patient privilege confidential warrants the privilege’s extension to protect communications made to agents of the licensed psychologist or psychiatrist); Commonwealth v. Kyle, 367 Pa.Super. 484 , 533 A.2d 120 (1987) (explaining how the privilege afforded by § 5944 was intended to inspire confidence in the client and encourage full disclosure to the psychologist which serves the public interest in promoting a society in which the general well-being of the citizenry is 1996See Kalenevitch v. Finger, 407 Pa.Super. 431 , 595 A.2d 1224 (1991) (holding that the importance of keeping the psychotherapist-patient privilege confidential warrants the privilege’s extension to protect communications made to agents of the licensed psychologist or psychiatrist); Commonwealth v. Kyle, 367 Pa.Super. 484 , 533 A.2d 120 (1987) (explaining how the privilege afforded by § 5944 was intended to inspire confidence in the client and encourage full disclosure to the psychologist which serves the public interest in promoting a society in which the general well-being of the citizenry is | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Matter of Adoption of Embick
green
2 sentences1996See Kalenevitch v. Finger, 407 Pa.Super. 431 , 595 A.2d 1224 (1991) (holding that the importance of keeping the psychotherapist-patient privilege confidential warrants the privilege’s extension to protect communications made to agents of the licensed psychologist or psychiatrist); Commonwealth v. Kyle, 367 Pa.Super. 484 , 533 A.2d 120 (1987) (explaining how the privilege afforded by § 5944 was intended to inspire confidence in the client and encourage full disclosure to the psychologist which serves the public interest in promoting a society in which the general well-being of the citizenry is 1996See Kalenevitch v. Finger, 407 Pa.Super. 431 , 595 A.2d 1224 (1991) (holding that the importance of keeping the psychotherapist-patient privilege confidential warrants the privilege’s extension to protect communications made to agents of the licensed psychologist or psychiatrist); Commonwealth v. Kyle, 367 Pa.Super. 484 , 533 A.2d 120 (1987) (explaining how the privilege afforded by § 5944 was intended to inspire confidence in the client and encourage full disclosure to the psychologist which serves the public interest in promoting a society in which the general well-being of the citizenry is | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. John B.
green
2 sentences1995Cf., People v. John B., 192 Cal.App.3d 1073 , 237 Cal.Rptr. 659 (1987) (holding that psychotherapist-patient privilege is not absolute and must yield to the reporting requirements outlined in California’s Child Abuse Reporting Act); State ex rel. 1995Cf., People v. John B., 192 Cal.App.3d 1073 , 237 Cal.Rptr. 659 (1987) (holding that psychotherapist-patient privilege is not absolute and must yield to the reporting requirements outlined in California’s Child Abuse Reporting Act); State ex rel. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.