ILCS » Chapter 740 · Act 110

740 ILCS 110/5

Disclosure; consent

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(740 ILCS 110/5) (from Ch. 91 1/2, par. 805)
    Sec. 5. Disclosure; consent.
    (a) Except as provided in Sections 6 through 12.2 of this Act, records and communications may be disclosed to someone other than those persons listed in Section 4 of this Act only with the written consent of those persons who are entitled to inspect and copy a recipient's record pursuant to Section 4 of this Act.
    (b) Every consent form shall be in writing and shall specify the following:
        (1) the person or agency to whom disclosure is to be
    
made;
        (2) the purpose for which disclosure is to be made;
        (3) the nature of the information to be disclosed;
        (4) the right to inspect and copy the information to
    
be disclosed;
    (5) the consequences of a refusal to consent, if any; and
        (6) the calendar date on which the consent expires,
    
provided that if no calendar date is stated, information may be released only on the day the consent form is received by the therapist; and
        (7) the right to revoke the consent at any time.
    The consent form shall be signed by the person entitled to give consent. A copy of the consent and a notation as to any action taken thereon shall be entered in the recipient's record. Any revocation of consent shall be in writing, signed by the person who gave the consent. No written revocation of consent shall be effective to prevent disclosure of records and communications until it is received by the person otherwise authorized to disclose records and communications.
    (c) Only information relevant to the purpose for which disclosure is sought may be disclosed. Blanket consent to the disclosure of unspecified information shall not be valid. Advance consent may be valid only if the nature of the information to be disclosed is specified in detail and the duration of the consent is indicated. Consent may be revoked in writing at any time; any such revocation shall have no effect on disclosures made prior thereto.
    (d) No person or agency to whom any information is disclosed under this Section may redisclose such information unless the person who consented to the disclosure specifically consents to such redisclosure.
    (e) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, records and communications shall remain confidential after the death of a recipient and shall not be disclosed unless the recipient's representative, as defined in the Probate Act of 1975 and the therapist consent to such disclosure or unless disclosure is authorized by court order after in camera examination and upon good cause shown.
    (f) Paragraphs (a) through (e) of this Section shall not apply to and shall not be construed to limit insurance companies writing Life, Accident or Health insurance as defined in Section 4 of the Illinois Insurance Code in obtaining general consents for the release to them or their designated representatives of any and all confidential communications and records kept by agencies, hospitals, therapists or record custodians, and utilizing such information in connection with the underwriting of applications for coverage for such policies or contracts, or in connection with evaluating claims or liability under such policies or contracts, or coordinating benefits pursuant to policy or contract provisions.
(Source: P.A. 104-270, eff. 8-15-25.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Norskog v. Pfiel
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Norskog v. Pfiel (2001) ill · cites it 4× “740 ILCS 110/5 (West 2000). Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that a recipient may consent to disclosure of information for a limited purpose and that any agency or person who obtains confidential and privileged information may not redisclose the information without the…”
Wolin v. The Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (2012) illappct · cites it 8× “740 ILCS 110/5(a) (West 2010). In other words, for purposes of this case, C.”
Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc. (2023) ill · cites it 2× “3(b) (West 2020) (“[a] person to whom disclosure of a foster parent’s name, address, or telephone number is made under this Section shall not redisclose that information except as provided in this Act or the Juvenile Court Act of 1987”)) and section 5 of the Mental Health and…”
Thompson v. N.J. (2016) illappct · cites it 2× “consented to the release of her mental health records pursuant to sections 5 and 10(a)(1) of the Act (740 ILCS 110/5, 10(a)(1) (West 2014)). Plaintiff asserted that during the course of the investigation N.”
Officer James T. McGreal v. Eric Ostrov, Doctor, Village of Alsip, Kenneth Wood, Chief of the Alsip Police Department (2004) ca7 “Ostrov, who is a psychologist, qualifies as a therapist; his examination, evaluation and diagnosis of McGreal constitute mental health services; McGreal is a recipient under the plain language; and Ostrov’s resulting report is a covered record. The Confidentiality Act contains…”
In re Marriage of Slomka (2009) illappct · cites it 2× “We first address Christopher’s argument that he did not waive privilege under the Confidentiality Act (740 ILCS 110/5 (West 2006)) because the Confidentiality Act mandates a written waiver and a party may not waive confidentiality by failing to object on the grounds of privilege.”
In Re Marriage of Kerman (1993) illappct “” 740 ILCS 110/5(a)(l) (West 1992). Section 4(a) provides in pertinent part: “The following persons shall be entitled, upon request, to inspect and copy a recipient’s record or any part thereof: (1) the parent or guardian of a recipient who is under 12 years of age.”
People v. Sechler (1994) illappct · cites it 2× “(See 740 ILCS 110/ 5(a) (West 1992).) If defendant received the information in this manner, redisclosure would be regulated under the Act.”
Stuckey v. Renaissance at Midway (2016) illappct “See 740 ILCS 110/5 to 12.3 (West 2014). ¶ 21 As our supreme court has summarized: “The Act represents a comprehensive revision and repeal of previous statutes pertaining to psychotherapeutic communications.”
Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc. (2023) ill · cites it 2× “3(b) (West 2020) (“[a] person to whom disclosure of a foster parent’s name, address, or telephone number is made under this Section shall not redisclose that information except as provided in this Act or the Juvenile Court Act of 1987”)) and section 5 of the Mental Health and…”
In re Marriage of Troy S. (2001) illappct “” 740 ILCS 110/5 (West 1998). Section 4(a) provides that “the parent or guardian of a recipient who is under 12 years of age” is entitled to inspect and copy records.”
Stuckey v. Renaissance at Midway (2015) illappct “See 740 ILCS 110/5 to 12.3 (West 2014). ¶ 20 As our supreme court has summarized: "The Act represents a comprehensive revision and repeal of previous statutes pertaining to psychotherapeutic communications.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— 740 ILCS 110/5(a) — 3 cases
Wolin v. The Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (2012) illappct “740 ILCS 110/5(a) (West 2010). In other words, for purposes of this case, C.”
People v. Sechler (1994) illappct “(See 740 ILCS 110/ 5(a) (West 1992).) If defendant received the information in this manner, redisclosure would be regulated under the Act.”
Garg v. Pagone (2024) illappct
— 740 ILCS 110/5(a)(5) — 1 case
Wolin v. The Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (2012) illappct “740 ILCS 110/5(a) (West 2010). In other words, for purposes of this case, C.”
— 740 ILCS 110/5(a)(l) — 1 case
In Re Marriage of Kerman (1993) illappct “” 740 ILCS 110/5(a)(l) (West 1992). Section 4(a) provides in pertinent part: “The following persons shall be entitled, upon request, to inspect and copy a recipient’s record or any part thereof: (1) the parent or guardian of a recipient who is under 12 years of age.”
— 740 ILCS 110/5(b) — 3 cases
Officer James T. McGreal v. Eric Ostrov, Doctor, Village of Alsip, Kenneth Wood, Chief of the Alsip Police Department (2004) ca7 “Ostrov, who is a psychologist, qualifies as a therapist; his examination, evaluation and diagnosis of McGreal constitute mental health services; McGreal is a recipient under the plain language; and Ostrov’s resulting report is a covered record. The Confidentiality Act contains…”
Wolin v. The Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (2012) illappct “740 ILCS 110/5(a) (West 2010). In other words, for purposes of this case, C.”
McGreal, James T. v. Ostrov, Eric Dr. (2004) ca7
— 740 ILCS 110/5(c) — 1 case
Wolin v. The Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (2012) illappct “740 ILCS 110/5(a) (West 2010). In other words, for purposes of this case, C.”
— 740 ILCS 110/5(d) — 4 cases
Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc. (2023) ill “3(b) (West 2020) (“[a] person to whom disclosure of a foster parent’s name, address, or telephone number is made under this Section shall not redisclose that information except as provided in this Act or the Juvenile Court Act of 1987”)) and section 5 of the Mental Health and…”
People v. Sechler (1994) illappct “(See 740 ILCS 110/ 5(a) (West 1992).) If defendant received the information in this manner, redisclosure would be regulated under the Act.”
Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc. (2023) ill “3(b) (West 2020) (“[a] person to whom disclosure of a foster parent’s name, address, or telephone number is made under this Section shall not redisclose that information except as provided in this Act or the Juvenile Court Act of 1987”)) and section 5 of the Mental Health and…”
Doe v. Burke Wise Morrissey & Kaveny (2022) illappct
— 740 ILCS 110/5(e) — 2 cases
Norskog v. Pfiel (2001) ill “740 ILCS 110/5 (West 2000). Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that a recipient may consent to disclosure of information for a limited purpose and that any agency or person who obtains confidential and privileged information may not redisclose the information without the…”
Norskog v. Pfiel (2001) ill
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.