Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 32, § 7005

Communication between social workers and clients

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Except at the request of, or with the consent of, the client, no person licensed under this chapter may be required to testify in any civil or criminal action, suit or proceeding at law or in equity respecting any information which he may have acquired in providing social work services to the client in a professional and contractual capacity if that information was necessary to enable him to furnish professional social work services to the client. However, when the physical or mental condition of the client is an issue in that action, suit or proceeding or when a court in the exercise of sound discretion deems the disclosure necessary to the proper administration of justice, no information communicated to, or otherwise learned by, that licensed person in connection with the provision of social work services may be privileged and disclosure may be required.   [PL 1985, c. 736, §5 (AMD).]
Nothing in this section may prohibit disclosure by a person licensed under this chapter of information concerning a client when that disclosure is required by law and nothing in this section may modify or affect the provisions of Title 22, sections 4011‑A to 4015.   [PL 2001, c. 345, §9 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1977, c. 673, §3 (NEW). PL 1979, c. 733, §19 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 736, §5 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 345, §9 (AMD).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1994–2002 · leading case: State v. Watson
State v. Watson (1999) me “32 M.R.S.A. § 7005 (1988). 4 . Federal courts interpreting Fed.”
State v. Boobar (1994) me “1993), and the statute setting forth a limited privilege for disclosures to licensed social workers, 32 M.R.S.A. § 7005 (1988), plainly do not apply to these circumstances.”
State v. Branch-Wear (1997) me · cites it 2× “ed by the State allege a crime of commission or omission; that the evidence was insufficient to establish that she tampered with a victim; and that the court abused its discretion in allowing two staff members of the homeless shelter where she and her children had resided to…”
Jane Student 1 v. Williams (2002) alsd “510; Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 7005; Md.Code Ann.”
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.