PUBLIC HEALTH CODE
Act 368 of 1978
333.18237 Confidential information; disclosure; waiver.
Sec. 18237.
A psychologist licensed or allowed to use that title under this part or an individual under his or her supervision cannot be compelled to disclose confidential information acquired from an individual consulting the psychologist in his or her professional capacity if the information is necessary to enable the psychologist to render services. Information may be disclosed with the consent of the individual consulting the psychologist, or if the individual consulting the psychologist is a minor, with the consent of the minor's guardian, pursuant to section 16222 if the psychologist reasonably believes it is necessary to disclose the information to comply with section 16222, or under section 16281. In a contest on the admission of a deceased individual's will to probate, an heir at law of the decedent, whether a proponent or contestant of the will, and the personal representative of the decedent may waive the privilege created by this section.
History: 1978, Act 368, Eff. Sept. 30, 1978 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 79, Eff. Apr. 1, 1994 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 496, Eff. Mar. 1, 1999
PopularName Notes:
Act 368
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2022 · leading case:
Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996).
Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996).
· cites it 2× “Laws § 233:20B (1995); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 333.18237 (West Supp.”
People v. Toma, 613 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. 2000).
· cites it 2× “ient privilege, in relevant part, provides: A psychologist licensed or allowed to use that title under this part or an individual under his or her supervision cannot be compelled to disclose confidential information acquired from an individual consulting the psychologist in his…”
In Re Attorney Gen. for Investigative Subpoenas, 766 N.W.2d 675 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “Respondent’s motion maintained that “[t]he information that petitioner has requested and that this Court has ordered by investigative subpoena to be produced is privileged information under the psychologist-patient privilege, MCL 333.18237, and, therefore, is statutorily…”
People v. LaLone, 437 N.W.2d 611 (Mich. 1989).
· cites it 2× “MCL 333.18237; MSA 14.15(18237) shields licensed psychologists from the disclosure of confidential information obtained during the course of a client's treatment.”
Howe v. Detroit Free Press, Inc, 487 N.W.2d 374 (Mich. 1992).
· cites it 2× “For instance, under MCL 333.18237; MSA 14.15(18237), a psychologist "shall not be compelled to disclose confidential information.”
People v. Lobaito, 351 N.W.2d 233 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “3 MCL 333.18237; MSA 14.15(18237) provides in part: "A psychologist licensed or allowed to use the title under this part or individual under his or her supervision shall not be compelled to disclose confidential information acquired from an individual consulting the psychologist…”
Jilek v. Stockson, 796 N.W.2d 267 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“2157; psychologist-patient communications, MCL 333.18237; social worker-client communications, MCL 333.”
Kilbride v. Kilbride, 432 N.W.2d 324 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
“2157, and the psychologist-patient privilege, MCL 333.18237; MSA 14.15(18237). Thus far, plaintiff has waived these privileges and has not indicated an intent to invoke them.”
People v. Daniels, 386 N.W.2d 609 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
“2157, and the psychologist-patient privilege, MCL 333.18237; MSA 14.15(18237). The sentencing court stated at sentencing that "group therapy at Beth Mosher has not helped this young man”.”
People v. Howe, 503 N.W.2d 749 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 4× “If the material is not discoverable under this statute, there would have to be some other basis for allowing the discovery to go forward given the psychologist-patient privilege established in MCL 333.18237; MSA 14.15(18237). That statute gives a general unqualified privilege…”
Khaled Sabbagh v. Hamilton Psychological Servs. Plc (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“Plaintiffs note that the Supreme Court in Dyer used the word “physician” many times in its opinion, and they therefore assert that “[t]he Supreme Court would not have bothered to draw the distinction between a physician performing an IME and a nonphysician performing an IME (or,…”
People of Michigan v. James Edward Garlinger (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
“Defendant argues that his statement to the social worker was privileged under the psychologist-patient privilege, MCL 333.18237, but does not explain how that statute applies to statements made to a social worker.”
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.