Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1999–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut 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 |
|---|---|---|
Guerrier v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Finally, in Guerrier v. State, 811 So. 2d 852, 855-56 (Fla. App.), review denied, 831 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 2002), the Florida Appellate Court interpreted a statutory dangerous patient exception to the physician-patient privilege broadly and not strictly and narrowly, as must be done in this case by the express terms of § 52-146q (c). 2009Finally, in Guerrier v. State, 811 So.2d 852, 855-56 (Fla.App.), review denied, 831 So.2d 672 *764 (Fla.2002), the Florida Appellate Court interprets a statutory dangerous patient exception to the physician-patient privilege broadly and not strictly and narrowly, as must be done in this case by the express terms of § 52-146q (c). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Edelstein v. Department of Public Health & Addiction Services
green
2 sentences2018As this court recognized in Edelstein v. Dept. of Public Health & Addiction Services , supra, 240 Conn. at 662 , 692 A.2d 803 , § 52-146o"created a broad physician-patient privilege," and, therefore, the rationale of these jurisdictions that decline to recognize a common-law action for breach of the duty of confidentiality is not persuasive in Connecticut. 2018As this court recognized in Edelstein v. Dept. of Public Health & Addiction Services , supra, 240 Conn. at 662 , 692 A.2d 803 , § 52-146o"created a broad physician-patient privilege," and, therefore, the rationale of these jurisdictions that decline to recognize a common-law action for breach of the duty of confidentiality is not persuasive in Connecticut. | 3 | 2000–2018 |
State v. DePastino
green
2 sentences2003In Kelly, our Supreme Court held that a treating physician may testify as to the identity of the perpetrator and the details of a sexual assault as it is relevant “to facilitate the treatment of psychological and physical injuries.” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Kelly, supra, 256 Conn. 45 , quoting State v. DePastino, 228 Conn. 552, 565 , 638 A.2d 578 (1994). 11 Although Kelly and DePastino address the physician-patient exception to the hearsay rule, I see no reason not to permit any other qualified, mental health professional from testifying about allegations of 2003In Kelly, our Supreme Court held that a treating physician may testify as to the identity of the perpetrator and the details of a sexual assault as it is relevant “to facilitate the treatment of psychological and physical injuries.” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Kelly, supra, 256 Conn. 45 , quoting State v. DePastino, 228 Conn. 552, 565 , 638 A.2d 578 (1994). 11 Although Kelly and DePastino address the physician-patient exception to the hearsay rule, I see no reason not to permit any other qualified, mental health professional from testifying about allegations of | 1 | 2003–2003 |
In Re MM
green
1 sentence1999Other jurisdictions have held that a parent's psychiatric records are admissible in a termination proceeding, even where the parent has asserted the privilege: CT Page 4232 "An individual who seeks to resist action by the State to terminate his or her parental rights over a child places his or her mental health in issue, justifying the admission of testimony by treating physicians which might otherwise be barred by the physician patient privilege." In Re M.M ., 569 A.2d 463 , 465 (Vt. 1989) Our own Appellate Court adopted the forgoing rationale in a Connecticut termination case: "We conclude t | 1 | 1999–1999 |
In re Romance M.
green
1 sentence1999Other jurisdictions have held that a parent's psychiatric records are admissible in a termination proceeding, even where the parent has asserted the privilege: CT Page 4232 "An individual who seeks to resist action by the State to terminate his or her parental rights over a child places his or her mental health in issue, justifying the admission of testimony by treating physicians which might otherwise be barred by the physician patient privilege." In Re M.M ., 569 A.2d 463 , 465 (Vt. 1989) Our own Appellate Court adopted the forgoing rationale in a Connecticut termination case: "We conclude t | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.