The confidential relations and communications between a licensed psychologist, licensed independent school psychologist, or licensed school psychologist and client are placed upon the same basis as those between physician and patient under division (B) of section 2317.02 of the Revised Code. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require any such privileged communication to be disclosed.
Last updated March 22, 2023 at 12:31 PM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: State v. Wood, 752 N.E.2d 990 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Wood, 752 N.E.2d 990 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 13דWood alleges that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress statements he made to an unlicensed psychologist on the basis of the psychologist-patient privilege provided for in R.C. 4732.19 and 2317.02(B). We conclude that because the psychologist-patient…”
In re Jones, 790 N.E.2d 321 (Ohio 2003). · cites it 5דIt certified this question to us for resolution: “In dependency/neglect cases, do the statutory privileges set forth in former R.C. 4732.19 and R.C. 2317.02(G) apply to the reports and/or testimony of a psychologist and a licensed independent social worker when such testimony…”
State v. Hancock, 840 N.E.2d 1032 (Ohio 2006). “02(B)(1), (2), and (3), “and except that, if the patient is deemed by [R.C.] 2151.421 * * * to have waived any testimonial privilege under this division, the physician may be compelled to testify on the same subject.”
Skorvanek v. Dept. of Rehab & Corr., 2018 Ohio 3870 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2דR.C. 4732.19. {¶ 55} The purpose of the physician-patient privilege is to " 'create an atmosphere of confidentiality, encouraging the patient to be completely candid and open with his or her physician [or psychologist], thereby enabling more complete treatment.”
State v. Farthing, 767 N.E.2d 1242 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3ד” {¶ 24} Pursuant to R.C. 4732.19, communications between a licensed psychologist and a client are to be treated the same as communications between a physician and a patient.”
State v. Fears, 715 N.E.2d 136 (Ohio 1999). “R.C. 4732.19 places “confidential relations and communications between a licensed psychologist * * * and client * * * upon the same basis as those between physician and patient * * *.”
In re Wieland, 733 N.E.2d 1127 (Ohio 2000). · cites it 2ד02(B)(1) (concerning communications between a physician and patient), R.C. 4732.19 (concerning communications between a licensed psychologist and client), and R.”
In re I.T., 2016 Ohio 555 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “O’Bradovich’s testimony was barred by the psychologist-patient privilege as explained in R.C. 4732.19 because the exception defined in R.”
Torres Friedenberg v. Friedenberg (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 3345 (Ohio 2020). “02(B)(1) prohibits, except in limited circumstances, a physician from testifying “concerning a communication made to the physician * * * by a patient in that relation” or concerning the physician’s advice to a patient.”
In re Miller, 585 N.E.2d 396 (Ohio 1992). “It is urged that if the physician-patient privilege is not scrupulously protected in the treatment of mental illness, this type of communication is threatened. A patient who anticipates that potentially damaging matters related in strict confidence may be revealed will be…”
State v. Fears, 1999 Ohio 111 (Ohio 1999). “R.C. 4732.19 places “confidential relations and communications between a licensed psychologist * * * and client * * * upon the same basis as those between physician and patient * * *.”
In Re Smith, 454 N.E.2d 171 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2דSmith indicated, when asked on direct examination whether he could have refused to be examined, that, “[s]he said we had to go.”
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.