physician-patient privilege in Oregon

2017Specifically with respect to the physician-patient privilege, “voluntary disclosure” of communications or other matters that are subject to the privilege occurs “upon the holder’s offering of any person as a witness who testifies as to the condition.” Id. (emphasis added).

2017Specifically with respect to the physician-patient privilege, “voluntary disclosure” of communications or other matters that are subject to the privilege occurs “upon the holder’s offering of any person as a witness who testifies as to the condition.” Id. (emphasis added).

1976Dept. v. Martin, 19 Or App 28, 36 , 526 P2d 647 (1974), rev’d on other grounds 271 Or 603 , 533 P2d 780 (1975), this court had occasion to say that "* * * [i]n terms of the functions and purposes of the privileges, any distinction between a licensed psychologist and a psychiatrist would seem to be a specious one.” The rule applicable to when the physician-patient privilege applies is no more succinctly stated than in Triplett v. Bd. of Social Protection, 19 Or App 408, 414 , 528 P2d 563 (1974): "The physician-patient privilege created by ORS 44.040(l)(d) applies only as to 'information acquire

1976Dept. v. Martin, 19 Or App 28, 36 , 526 P2d 647 (1974), rev’d on other grounds 271 Or 603 , 533 P2d 780 (1975), this court had occasion to say that "* * * [i]n terms of the functions and purposes of the privileges, any distinction between a licensed psychologist and a psychiatrist would seem to be a specious one.” The rule applicable to when the physician-patient privilege applies is no more succinctly stated than in Triplett v. Bd. of Social Protection, 19 Or App 408, 414 , 528 P2d 563 (1974): "The physician-patient privilege created by ORS 44.040(l)(d) applies only as to 'information acquire

2019That’s all I have.” Tape Recording, Senate Committee on Human Resources/ Aging, HB 2865, May 7, 1981, Tape 2, Side A (statement of 1 In particular, former ORS 418.775(1) (1971) provided: “In the case of abuse of a child, as defined in ORS 418.740, neither the physician-patient privilege nor the husband-wife privilege shall be a ground for excluding evidence regarding a child’s abuse, as defined in ORS 418.740, or the cause thereof, in any judicial proceeding resulting from a report made pursuant to 418.750.” Cite as 301 Or App 549 (2019) 561 William Perrin).

1986The common law rule would resolve that dilemma. 3 The common law rule is “that a death was not a homicide unless it resulted within a year and a day from the time of the act which was alleged to have caused it.” State v. Hudson, supra, 56 Or App at 464 . 4 ORS 418.775(1) provides: “In the case of abuse of a child, as defined in ORS 418.740, the psychotherapist-patient privilege, the physician-patient privilege, the privileges extended to nurses, to staff members of schools and to registered clinical social workers and the husband-wife privilege created by ORS 40.230 to 40.255 shall not be a gr

1985State v. Martin, 274 NW2d 893 (SD), cert den 444 US 883 (1979). 5 This is consistent with the interpretation given the identical language in the attorney-client privilege, OEC 503(l)(b).

1985In State v. O’Neill, 274 Or 59 , 545 P2d 97 (1976), for example, this court held that the physician-patient privilege was applicable where the defendant was brought for the first time to a hospital crisis unit for observation and treatment.

1985In State v. O’Neill, 274 Or 59 , 545 P2d 97 (1976), for example, this court held that the physician-patient privilege was applicable where the defendant was brought for the first time to a hospital crisis unit for observation and treatment.

1985State v. Martin, 274 NW2d 893 (SD), cert den 444 US 883 (1979). 5 This is consistent with the interpretation given the identical language in the attorney-client privilege, OEC 503(l)(b).

1979App. at 704-705 , 588 P.2d at 640 ) in reference to ORS 418.740 et seq., that those statutes: "* * * indicate that in subsequent legal proceedings arising out of those reports, the report itself shall be admissible and shall not be deemed in violation of the physician-patient privilege, the husband-wife privilege, or the privilege extended to staff members of schools and to nurses under ORS 44.040.

1976Dept. v. Martin, 19 Or App 28, 36 , 526 P2d 647 (1974), rev’d on other grounds 271 Or 603 , 533 P2d 780 (1975), this court had occasion to say that "* * * [i]n terms of the functions and purposes of the privileges, any distinction between a licensed psychologist and a psychiatrist would seem to be a specious one.” The rule applicable to when the physician-patient privilege applies is no more succinctly stated than in Triplett v. Bd. of Social Protection, 19 Or App 408, 414 , 528 P2d 563 (1974): "The physician-patient privilege created by ORS 44.040(l)(d) applies only as to 'information acquire

1976Dept. v. Martin, 19 Or App 28, 36 , 526 P2d 647 (1974), rev’d on other grounds 271 Or 603 , 533 P2d 780 (1975), this court had occasion to say that "* * * [i]n terms of the functions and purposes of the privileges, any distinction between a licensed psychologist and a psychiatrist would seem to be a specious one.” The rule applicable to when the physician-patient privilege applies is no more succinctly stated than in Triplett v. Bd. of Social Protection, 19 Or App 408, 414 , 528 P2d 563 (1974): "The physician-patient privilege created by ORS 44.040(l)(d) applies only as to 'information acquire

1976Dept. v. Martin, 19 Or App 28, 36 , 526 P2d 647 (1974), rev’d on other grounds 271 Or 603 , 533 P2d 780 (1975), this court had occasion to say that "* * * [i]n terms of the functions and purposes of the privileges, any distinction between a licensed psychologist and a psychiatrist would seem to be a specious one.” The rule applicable to when the physician-patient privilege applies is no more succinctly stated than in Triplett v. Bd. of Social Protection, 19 Or App 408, 414 , 528 P2d 563 (1974): "The physician-patient privilege created by ORS 44.040(l)(d) applies only as to 'information acquire

1976Dept. v. Martin, 19 Or App 28, 36 , 526 P2d 647 (1974), rev’d on other grounds 271 Or 603 , 533 P2d 780 (1975), this court had occasion to say that "* * * [i]n terms of the functions and purposes of the privileges, any distinction between a licensed psychologist and a psychiatrist would seem to be a specious one.” The rule applicable to when the physician-patient privilege applies is no more succinctly stated than in Triplett v. Bd. of Social Protection, 19 Or App 408, 414 , 528 P2d 563 (1974): "The physician-patient privilege created by ORS 44.040(l)(d) applies only as to 'information acquire

1974Turning to the Oregon cases dealing with this issue, in State v. Jamison, 251 Or 114 , 444 P2d 15 , 444 P2d 1005 (1968), our Supreme Court held that in a juvenile court proceeding to terminate the parental rights of an indigent mother of several illegitimate children, failure of the state to inform the mother of her right to court-appointed counsel and to appoint such counsel constituted a violation of her right to due process of law.

1974Turning to the Oregon cases dealing with this issue, in State v. Jamison, 251 Or 114 , 444 P2d 15 , 444 P2d 1005 (1968), our Supreme Court held that in a juvenile court proceeding to terminate the parental rights of an indigent mother of several illegitimate children, failure of the state to inform the mother of her right to court-appointed counsel and to appoint such counsel constituted a violation of her right to due process of law.

1974Turning to the Oregon cases dealing with this issue, in State v. Jamison, 251 Or 114 , 444 P2d 15 , 444 P2d 1005 (1968), our Supreme Court held that in a juvenile court proceeding to terminate the parental rights of an indigent mother of several illegitimate children, failure of the state to inform the mother of her right to court-appointed counsel and to appoint such counsel constituted a violation of her right to due process of law.

1974When a party fails to object to the privileged testimony of one physician, she waives her physician-patient privilege as to all other testimony and evidence on the same subject. 8 Wigmore, Evidence 862-864, § 2390; Capron v. Douglass, 193 NY 11 , 85 NE 827 (1908).

1974When a party fails to object to the privileged testimony of one physician, she waives her physician-patient privilege as to all other testimony and evidence on the same subject. 8 Wigmore, Evidence 862-864, § 2390; Capron v. Douglass, 193 NY 11 , 85 NE 827 (1908).

1974State v. Betts, 235 Or 127 , 384 P2d 198 , 7 ALR3d 1445 (1963).

1974State v. Betts, 235 Or 127 , 384 P2d 198 , 7 ALR3d 1445 (1963).