Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 490.0147 (2025)
Confidentiality and privileged communications.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
490.0147 Confidentiality and privileged communications.—
(1) Any communication between a psychologist and her or his patient or client is confidential. This privilege may be waived under the following conditions:
(a) When the psychologist is a party defendant to a civil, criminal, or disciplinary action arising from a complaint filed by the patient or client, in which case the waiver shall be limited to that action;
(b) When the patient or client agrees to the waiver, in writing, or when more than one person in a family is receiving therapy, when each family member agrees to the waiver, in writing; or
(c) When a patient or client has communicated to the psychologist a specific threat to cause serious bodily injury or death to an identified or readily available person, and the psychologist makes a clinical judgment that the patient or client has the apparent intent and ability to imminently or immediately carry out such threat, and the psychologist communicates the information to the potential victim. A disclosure of confidential communications by a psychologist when communicating a threat pursuant to this subsection may not be the basis of any legal action or criminal or civil liability against the psychologist.
(2) Such privilege must be waived, and the psychologist shall disclose patient or client communications to the extent necessary to communicate the threat to a law enforcement agency, if a patient or client has communicated to the psychologist a specific threat to cause serious bodily injury or death to an identified or readily available person, and the psychologist makes a clinical judgment that the patient or client has the apparent intent and ability to imminently or immediately carry out such threat. A law enforcement agency that receives notification of a specific threat under this subsection must take appropriate action to prevent the risk of harm, including, but not limited to, notifying the intended victim of such threat or initiating a risk protection order. A psychologist’s disclosure of confidential communications when communicating a threat pursuant to this subsection may not be the basis of any legal action or criminal or civil liability against the psychologist.
History.—ss. 13, 19, ch. 87-252; s. 36, ch. 88-392; ss. 12, 13, ch. 89-70; s. 10, ch. 90-192; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 508, ch. 97-103; s. 5, ch. 2019-134.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 2001–2020 · leading case: Florida Hosp. Waterman, Inc. v. Buster, 984 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2008).
Florida Hosp. Waterman, Inc. v. Buster, 984 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2008). “(2006) (providing that communications between an accountant and client are privileged); § 490.0147, Fla. Stat. (2006) (providing that communications between a licensed psychologist and client are privileged); § 491.”
Attorney Ad Litem for DK v. Parents of DK, 780 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). “In fact, one could argue that under the circumstances in O'Keefe the privilege is waived pursuant to section 490.0147(3) because there was a "clear and immediate probability of physical harm.”
Kasdaglis v. Dep't of Health, 827 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). “The term “appropriate family member” is not defined in section 490.0147, so we turn to other statutory provisions to flesh out its meaning.”
Roberto Estape v. Stanley B. Seidman, Ph.d. & Stanley B. Seidman Ph.d., P.A., 269 So. 3d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). “Section 490.0147, Florida Statutes (2012), provides that communications between a psychotherapist and patient are confidential, but the statute establishes circumstances where the privilege may be waived: Any communication between any person licensed under this chapter and her…”
Andrew Pollack v. Nikolas Jacob Cruz (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). “(2019) (service providers under the Baker Act); § 490.0147, Fla. Stat. (2019) (psychologists); § 491.”
— 490.0147(3) — 2 cases
Attorney Ad Litem for DK v. Parents of DK, 780 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). “In fact, one could argue that under the circumstances in O'Keefe the privilege is waived pursuant to section 490.0147(3) because there was a "clear and immediate probability of physical harm.”
Kasdaglis v. Dep't of Health, 827 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). “The term “appropriate family member” is not defined in section 490.0147, so we turn to other statutory provisions to flesh out its meaning.”
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.