65-5602.
Privilege of patient of treatment facility to prevent disclosure of treatment and of confidential communications; extent of privilege; persons who may claim privilege; persons to which confidential communications extend.
(a) A patient of a treatment facility has a privilege to prevent treatment personnel or ancillary personnel from disclosing that the patient has been or is currently receiving treatment or from disclosing any confidential communications made for the purposes of diagnosis or treatment of the patient's mental, alcoholic, drug dependency or emotional condition. The privilege extends to individual, family or group therapy under the direction of the treatment personnel and includes members of the patient's family. The privilege may be claimed by the patient, by the patient's guardian or conservator or by the personal representative of a deceased patient. The treatment personnel shall claim the privilege on behalf of the patient unless the patient has made a written waiver of the privilege and provided the treatment personnel with a copy of such waiver or unless one of the exceptions provided by K.S.A. 65-5603 is applicable.
(b) Confidential communications shall extend to those persons present to further the interests of the patient in the consultation, examination or interview; ancillary personnel; persons who are participating in the diagnosis and treatment under the direction of the treatment personnel, including members of the patient's family; and any other persons who the patient reasonably believes needs the communication to assist in the patient's diagnosis or treatment.
History:
L. 1986, ch. 212, § 2; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Goodman v. Wesley Med. Ctr., L.L.C., 78 P.3d 817 (Kan. 2003).
· cites it 2× “*596 Goodman’s claim of attomey/client privilege belies a lack of understanding of what that privilege entails. Goodman has no standing to claim a privilege for another person’s confidential information or to waive the other person’s statutory privilege provided by K.”
Hosey v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 160 F.R.D. 161 (D. Kan. 1995).
· cites it 14× “1) under a claim of privilege afforded by Kansas law under K.S.A. 65-5602. Plaintiffs have filed a response, which response has been supplemented.”
Ali v. Douglas Cable Commc'ns, Ltd. P'ship, 890 F. Supp. 993 (D. Kan. 1995).
· cites it 3× “It is movant’s position that the records in issue are subject to a privilege established by K.S.A. 65-5602(a) 1 and K.S.A.1993 Supp. 59-2931(a).”
State v. Shoptaw, 56 P.3d 303 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “’s claimed privilege to her mental health records is covered by K.S.A. 65-5602, the statutorily created privilege to patients of a treatment facility.”
State v. Chighisola, 430 P.3d 996 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 13× “Mental health records Chighisola argues the district court erred by relying on the treatment facility privilege of K.S.A. 65-5602 to prohibit Chighisola from introducing evidence in S.”
State v. Bourassa, 15 P.3d 835 (Kan. Ct. App. 1999).
“’s past psychological records would be privileged under K.S.A. 65-5602(a). As the court suggested in In re J.”
Sherman v. Jones, 258 F. Supp. 2d 440 (E.D. Va. 2003).
“; Kan. Stat. Ann. § 65-5602 ; Md.Code Ann. § 4-302; Mass.”
Hopkins, Jr. v. Yost (D. Kan. 2019).
· cites it 6× “1999) (upholding district court’s denial of mental health records as privileged information under K.S.A. § 65-5602). 21 Shoptaw, 30 Kan. App.”
Rodriguez v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. (D. Kan. 2021).
· cites it 3× “§ 65-5602(a), but that privilege does not apply if the patient relies on any of those conditions as part of her claim or defense in a lawsuit, see KAN.”
Smith v. United States Marshal Serv. (D. Kan. 2021).
· cites it 2× “The plaintiff’s in Merryfield, two persons civilly committed to the Kansas sexually violent predator treatment program, argued that the program’s policies violated their confidentiality privilege under K.S.A. 65-5602. Merryfield v. Kansas Social and Rehabilitation Servs.”
— K.S.A. § 65-5602(a) — 6 cases
Ali v. Douglas Cable Commc'ns, Ltd. P'ship, 890 F. Supp. 993 (D. Kan. 1995).
“It is movant’s position that the records in issue are subject to a privilege established by K.S.A. 65-5602(a) 1 and K.S.A.1993 Supp. 59-2931(a).”
State v. Bourassa, 15 P.3d 835 (Kan. Ct. App. 1999).
“’s past psychological records would be privileged under K.S.A. 65-5602(a). As the court suggested in In re J.”
State v. Shoptaw, 56 P.3d 303 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002).
“’s claimed privilege to her mental health records is covered by K.S.A. 65-5602, the statutorily created privilege to patients of a treatment facility.”
Hosey v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 160 F.R.D. 161 (D. Kan. 1995).
“1) under a claim of privilege afforded by Kansas law under K.S.A. 65-5602. Plaintiffs have filed a response, which response has been supplemented.”
State v. Chighisola, 430 P.3d 996 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
“Mental health records Chighisola argues the district court erred by relying on the treatment facility privilege of K.S.A. 65-5602 to prohibit Chighisola from introducing evidence in S.”
— K.S.A. § 65-5602(d) — 1 case
Rodriguez v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. (D. Kan. 2021).
“§ 65-5602(a), but that privilege does not apply if the patient relies on any of those conditions as part of her claim or defense in a lawsuit, see KAN.”
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.