In every legal action, both civil and criminal, no health care provider shall be competent
to testify concerning any information obtained about a patient, nor shall he or she
be required to produce any documentary evidence obtained about a patient, in the course
of the customary professional health care relationship, without the consent of the
patient, his or her legal guardian, or, if the patient is deceased, his or her next-of-kin,
executor, or administrator. No health care provider shall be allowed in giving testimony
to disclose any confidential communication or health care information, properly entrusted
to him or her in his or her professional capacity and within the customary health
care relationship, and necessary and proper to enable him or her to discharge medical
duties in the usual course of practice, without the consent of the patient, his or
her legal guardian, or, if the patient is deceased, his or her next-of-kin, executor,
or administrator. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a health care provider may be required
to testify or produce documentary evidence regarding the medical condition of a patient:
(1) When a patient raises his or her own medical condition in a legal action;
(2) When a court determines that disclosure of health care information about a person
is necessary to a determination of the perceptual capacity of that person as a witness
in a legal proceeding and that information is unavailable from any source other than
a health care provider;
(3) When a court orders or the parties to a legal action agree to a medical evaluation
of a party or witness by a health care provider in order to facilitate the resolution
of the legal action;
(4) When the question of the competence of a decedent is at issue before the court; or
(5) When consent is not required pursuant to chapter 37.3 of title 5; provided, however, that any such information shall not be admissible in any proceeding
against the patient to whom the information pertains.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2024 · leading case:
State v. Almonte, 644 A.2d 295 (R.I. 1994).
State v. Almonte, 644 A.2d 295 (R.I. 1994).
· cites it 85× “Does the Privileged Communications Act, § 9-17-24, violate Article 5 of the Rhode Island Constitution as an unconstitutional intrusion upon the function of the Judiciary? "2.”
Advisory Opinion to the House of Representatives, 469 A.2d 1161 (R.I. 1983).
· cites it 5× “The proposed section would be known as § 9-17-24. Accompanying the bill is an explanation of its contents that was prepared by the Legislative Council.”
State v. Guido, 698 A.2d 729 (R.I. 1997).
· cites it 4× “The State asserts that in the lower court the defendant’s privilege objection was based solely on G.L.1956 § 9-17-24 and therefore that his objection now before this Court on the basis of § 5-37.”
In re Doe, 717 A.2d 1129 (R.I. 1998).
· cites it 3× “1994), this Court examined a similar provision of the Privileged Communications Act, G.L.1956 § 9-17-24, which addressed communications to and information obtained by health-care providers.”
State v. Collins, 679 A.2d 862 (R.I. 1996).
· cites it 2× “This Court has further held that the Privileged Communications Act, G.L.1956 § 9-17-24, which prohibited a health-care provider from testifying concerning information obtained about a patient without the consent of the patient, represented an unconstitutional intrusion upon the…”
In re Rene B., 544 A.2d 137 (R.I. 1988).
· cites it 3× “1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-17-24. The General Assembly, at its January 1986 session, amended chapter 17 of title 9, with the addition of section 24, which in its pertinent part provides that in any legal action, whether civil or criminal, no healthcare provider shall be…”
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 748 A.2d 821 (R.I. 2000).
“3 of title 5, or the provisions of § 9-17-24, no privilege of confidentiality may be invoked with respect to any illness, trauma, incompetency, addiction to drugs, or alcoholism of any parent.”
Fiore v. Lynch, 637 A.2d 1052 (R.I. 1994).
“1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-17-24, as amended by P.L. 1989, ch. 503, § 1.”
In re Marie G., 550 A.2d 1058 (R.I. 1988).
· cites it 2× “1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-17-24, as amended by P.L. 1986, ch. 341, § 1.”
Danielle LeFebvre v. State of Rhode Island, 313 A.3d 1156 (R.I. 2024).
“3 of title 5, or the provisions of § 9-17-24, no privilege of confidentiality may be invoked with respect to any illness, trauma, incompetency, addiction to drugs, or alcoholism of any parent.”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-17-24(1): 1 case
State v. Almonte, 644 A.2d 295 (R.I. 1994).
“Does the Privileged Communications Act, § 9-17-24, violate Article 5 of the Rhode Island Constitution as an unconstitutional intrusion upon the function of the Judiciary? "2.”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-17-24(B): 1 case
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.