Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2503 (2026)

Physician and Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. As used in this section: 1. A “patient” is a person who consults or is examined or interviewed by a physician or psychotherapist; 2. A “physician” is a person authorized to practice medicine in any state or nation, or reasonably believed by the patient to be so authorized;

3. A “psychotherapist” is: a. a person authorized to practice medicine in any state or nation, or reasonably believed by the patient to be so authorized, while engaged in the diagnosis or treatment of a mental or emotional condition, including alcohol or drug addiction, or b. a person licensed or certified as a psychologist under the laws of any state or nation, or reasonably believed by the patient to be so licensed or certified, while similarly engaged; and 4. A communication is “confidential” if not intended to be disclosed to third persons, except persons present to further the interest of the patient in the consultation, examination or interview, persons reasonably necessary for the transmission of the communication, or persons who are participating in the diagnosis and treatment under the direction of the physician or psychotherapist, including members of the patient’s family. B. A patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s physical, mental or emotional condition, including alcohol or drug addiction, among the patient, the patient’s physician or psychotherapist, and persons who are participating in the diagnosis or treatment under the direction of the physician or psychotherapist, including members of the patient’s family. C. The privilege may be claimed by the patient, the patient’s guardian or conservator or the personal representative of a deceased patient. The person who was the physician or psychotherapist at the time of the communication is presumed to have authority to claim the privilege but only on behalf of the patient. D. The following shall be exceptions to a claim of privilege: 1. There is no privilege under this section for communications relevant to an issue in proceedings to hospitalize the patient for mental illness, if the psychotherapist in the course of diagnosis or treatment has determined that the patient is in need of hospitalization; 2. Communications made in the course of a court-ordered examination of the physical, mental or emotional condition of a patient, whether a party or a witness, are not privileged under this section when they relate to the particular purpose for which the examination is ordered unless the court orders otherwise; 3. The privilege under this Code as to a communication relevant to the physical, mental or emotional condition of the patient in any proceeding in which the patient relies upon that condition as an element of the patient’s claim or defense or, after the patient’s death, in any proceeding in which any party relies upon the condition as an element of the party’s claim or defense is qualified

to the extent that an adverse party in the proceeding may obtain relevant information regarding the condition by statutory discovery; 4. When the patient is an inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections or a private prison or facility under contract with the Department of Corrections, and the release of the information is necessary: a. to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of any person, or b. for law enforcement authorities to identify or apprehend an individual where it appears from all the circumstances that the individual has escaped from a correctional institution or from lawful custody; or 5. The testimonial privilege created pursuant to this section does not make communications confidential where state and federal privacy law would otherwise permit disclosure. Added by Laws 1978, c. 285, § 503, eff. Oct. 1, 1978. Amended by Laws 1980, c. 113, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 1980; Laws 2002, c. 468, § 33, eff. Nov. 1, 2002; Laws 2003, c.390, § 10, eff. July 1, 2003; Laws 2004, c. 168, § 5, emerg. eff. April 27, 2004; Laws 2009, c. 241, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2009.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 30 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: Myers v. Lashley, 2002 OK 14 (Okla. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Myers v. Lashley, 2002 OK 14 (Okla. 2002). · cites it 3× “[57] Although the psychotherapist/patient privilege is established by statute (12 O.S.1991 § 2503 (C)), the manner of creating a psychotherapist/patient relationship with persons under legal disability (infants or incompetents) remains steeped in the common law.”

Ellison v. Ellison, 919 P.2d 1 (Okla. 1996). · cites it 8× “The mother objected to his testimony, relying upon 12 O.S.1991 § 2503, the statute providing for a privilege for communications between a psychotherapist and his patient.”

Holmes v. Nightingale, 2007 OK 15 (Okla. 2007). · cites it 4× “§ 19(B), 12 O.S. § 2503(D)(3) and 45 C.F.R. § 164.”

Walker v. State, 887 P.2d 301 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “” 36 Walker claims generally that providing the State with the report violated the “psychotherapist-patient” privilege found at 12 O.S.1981, § 2503. However, Walker neither included Dr.”

Hooper v. State, 947 P.2d 1090 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “[61] 12 O.S.1991, § 2503(D)(3). [62] 22 O.S.Supp.”

Browning v. State, 2006 OK CR 8 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006). “12 O.S.2001, § 2503; Robinson v. Lane, 1971 OK 9 , 480 P.”

Johnson v. Dist. Court of Oklahoma Cnty., 738 P.2d 151 (Okla. 1987). · cites it 2× “1985 § 19(B) does provide for a complete waiver of the patient/physician privilege in a medical malpractice action as opposed to the qualification of the evidentiary privilege under 12 O.S.1981 § 2503(D)(3), in other cases where a physical, mental or emotional condition of a…”

State Ex Rel. Okla. State Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision v. Rivero, 2021 OK 31 (Okla. 2021). “It is the policy of the Board to maintain as confidential all patient records held by the Board in any file, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2503, to every extent possible under law.”

Walker v. Gibson, 228 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2000). “See Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2503 (4)(B). Also, he argues there was no evidence he knowingly and intelligently waived his right .”

Cheney v. State, 909 P.2d 74 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). “12 O.S.1991, § 2503(D)(3) states: [There is no] privilege under this Code as to a communication relevant to the physical, mental or emotional condition of the patient in any proceeding in which the patient relies upon that condition as an element of his claim or defense [[Image…”

United States v. Hansen, 955 F. Supp. 1225 (D. Mont. 1997). · cites it 2× “Rule 505; Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 2503 (C); Ore.”

Omalza v. State, 911 P.2d 286 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). “Nancy Huffines of the Tennessee Department of Health was called to introduce the psychiatric records of Lisa Shepherd.”

Show all 30 citing cases →

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2503(A)(2) — 1 case

Berry v. State, 753 P.2d 926 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2503(B) — 1 case

Crampton v. Morris (E.D. Okla. 2023).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2503(D)(3) — 9 cases

Holmes v. Nightingale, 2007 OK 15 (Okla. 2007). “§ 19(B), 12 O.S. § 2503(D)(3) and 45 C.F.R. § 164.”

Hooper v. State, 947 P.2d 1090 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). “[61] 12 O.S.1991, § 2503(D)(3). [62] 22 O.S.Supp.”

Johnson v. Dist. Court of Oklahoma Cnty., 738 P.2d 151 (Okla. 1987). “1985 § 19(B) does provide for a complete waiver of the patient/physician privilege in a medical malpractice action as opposed to the qualification of the evidentiary privilege under 12 O.S.1981 § 2503(D)(3), in other cases where a physical, mental or emotional condition of a…”

Berry v. State, 753 P.2d 926 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988).

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.