Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 33-6-601 (2026)

Disclosure of patient information relating to outpatient treatment

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) a person with mental illness or serious emotional disturbance was committed involuntarily under chapter 6, part 5 of this title, AND

(2) the hospital staff determines preliminarily that:
- (A) the person will need to participate in outpatient treatment on discharge, and
- (B) there is a likelihood that the discharge will be subject to the outpatient treatment obligation of this part, AND

(3) the person refuses to give consent to disclose information that is legally confidential under this title to the proposed outpatient qualified mental health professional,
THEN

(4) the hospital and qualified mental health professional may exchange information as necessary to carry out this part.

Acts 1982, ch. 862, § 4; 1983, ch. 323, §§ 19, 20, 22; T.C.A., § 33-615; Acts 1984, ch. 922, §§ 24, 25; 1985, ch. 437, § 21; T.C.A., § 33-6-201(a); Acts 2000, ch. 947, § 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2015–2015 · leading case: State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Ryan Mallady (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Ryan Mallady (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015). · cites it 8× “T.C.A. § 33-6-601. In the case where the patient’s suitability for outpatient treatment is based upon Tennessee Code Annotated section 33-6-708, the chief hospital officer’s determination about the patient’s eligibility for release from commitment has a rebuttable presumption of…”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 33-6-601(c) — 1 case

State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Ryan Mallady (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015). “T.C.A. § 33-6-601. In the case where the patient’s suitability for outpatient treatment is based upon Tennessee Code Annotated section 33-6-708, the chief hospital officer’s determination about the patient’s eligibility for release from commitment has a rebuttable presumption of…”

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.