O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 26-5-17 (2019)

Confidentiality of records, names, and communications

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

For the purpose of providing more effective treatment and rehabilitation, the records and name of any drug dependent person who seeks or obtains treatment, therapeutic advice, or counsel from any program licensed under this article shall be confidential and shall not be

revealed except to the extent authorized in writing by the drug dependent person affected; furthermore, any communication by such drug dependent person to an authorized employee of any holder of a license shall be deemed confidential; provided, however, that, except for matters privileged under other laws of this state, the records of such person and information about such person shall be produced in response to a valid court order of any court of competent jurisdiction after a full and fair show-cause hearing and in response to a departmental request for access for licensing purposes when such request is accompanied by a written statement that no record of patient identifying information will be made.

History

Ga. L. 1972, p. 714, § 18; Ga. L. 1985, p. 476, § 16; Ga. L. 1986, p. 10, § 26; Ga. L. 1991, p. 94, § 26; Ga. L. 2017, p. 307, § 2/SB 88.

Annotations

Law reviews. For comment, “The PsychotherapistClient Testimonial Privilege: Defining the Professional Involved,” see 34 Emory L.J. 777 (1985).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Admission of documents pursuant to court order. - Admission of records relating to a mother’s drug treatment, which were admitted pursuant to the or-

der of the juvenile court after a full and fair show-cause hearing, was not an abuse of discretion. In re L.H., 236 Ga. App. 132, 511 S.E.2d 253.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1999–1999 · leading case: In the Interest of L. H., 511 S.E.2d 253 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In the Interest of L. H., 511 S.E.2d 253 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “Assuming that the records at issue were covered by the requirements of these sections, we find no error in their admission.”
In Re Lh, 511 S.E.2d 253 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “Harrell contends the juvenile court breached the confidentiality requirements of OCGA § 26-5-17 and 42 USC § 290dd-2 by admitting evidence of records from MMAC relating to her drug treatment.”
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.