No person, duly authorized as a licensed psychologist or licensed psychological associate, nor any of his or her employees or associates, shall be required to disclose any information which he or she may have acquired in the practice of psychology and which information was necessary to enable him or her to practice psychology. Any resident or presiding judge in the district in which the action is pending may, subject to G.S. 8-53.6, compel disclosure, either at the trial or prior thereto, if in his or her opinion disclosure is necessary to a proper administration of justice. If the case is in district court the judge shall be a district court judge, and if the case is in superior court the judge shall be a superior court judge.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the psychologist-client or patient privilege shall not be grounds for failure to report suspected child abuse or neglect to the appropriate county department of social services, or for failure to report a disabled adult suspected to be in need of protective services to the appropriate county department of social services. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the psychologist-client or patient privilege shall not be grounds for excluding evidence regarding the abuse or neglect of a child, or an illness of or injuries to a child, or the cause thereof, or for excluding evidence regarding the abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a disabled adult, or an illness of or injuries to a disabled adult, or the cause thereof, in any judicial proceeding related to a report pursuant to the Child Abuse Reporting Law, Article 3 of Chapter 7B of the General Statutes, or to the Protection of the Abused, Neglected, or Exploited Disabled Adult Act, Article 6 of Chapter 108A of the General Statutes. (1967, c. 910, s. 18; 1983, c. 410, ss. 3, 7; 1987, c. 323, s. 2; 1993, c. 375, s. 2; c. 553, s. 78; 1998-202, s. 13(c).)
Notes of Decisions
State v. Williams, 510 S.E.2d 626 (N.C. 1999).
· cites it 6× “Defendant asserts that under N.C.G.S. § 8-53.3, a trial court may compel disclosure of psychologist-client privileged communications only if it is necessary to a proper administration of justice.”
In re K.D., 631 S.E.2d 150 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 5× “"); N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8-53.3 (2005) ("Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the psychologist-client or patient privilege shall not be grounds for excluding evidence regarding the abuse or neglect of a child.”
In Re the Investigation of the Death of Miller, 584 S.E.2d 772 (N.C. 2003).
· cites it 3× “Our General Assembly has also provided this same disclosure procedure and basis in its creation of the privilege for communications between psychologist and patient (N.C.G.S. § 8-53.3 (2001)), in the school counselor privilege (N.”
Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996).
· cites it 2× “Law § 4507 (McKinney 1992); N. C. Gen. Stat. § 8-53.3 (Supp. 1995); N.”
Flora v. Hamilton, 81 F.R.D. 576 (M.D.N.C. 1978).
· cites it 6× “The plaintiff’s reply is threefold: first, since the interview with the army psychiatrist took place in 1960, the information involved is highly dated and thus irrelevant; secondly, that due to the nature of the interview and the parties involved, the notes and conclusions are…”
State v. Davis, 539 S.E.2d 243 (N.C. 2000).
· cites it 3× “Likewise, defendant’s argument that the order violated his *47 Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is feckless. Thus, this assignment of error is without merit.”
State v. Efird, 309 S.E.2d 228 (N.C. 1983).
· cites it 4× “The defendant argues that such introduction did not constitute an exception under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-53.3 , and thus was a violation of the confidential communication privilege between patient and physician.”
Mathews v. Becerra, 455 P.3d 277 (Cal. 2019).
“§ 49-213 ; N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 8-53.3 ; Or. Rev. Stat.”
State v. Crews, 252 S.E.2d 745 (N.C. 1979).
· cites it 2× “Under the proviso in G.S. 8-53.3, the judge clearly could have compelled disclosure “if in his opinion the same is necessary to a proper administration of justice.”
State v. Theer, 639 S.E.2d 655 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-53.3 (2005) (“Any resident or presiding judge in the district in which the action is pending may .”
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.