Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 905.04 (2026)

Privilege between certain health-care providers and patients

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

905.04905.04 Privilege between certain health-care providers and patients.

905.04(1)(1) Definitions. In this section:

905.04(1)(a)(a) “Chiropractor” means a person licensed under s. 446.02, or a person reasonably believed by the patient to be a chiropractor.

905.04(1)(b)(b) A communication or information is “confidential” if not intended to be disclosed to 3rd persons other than those present to further the interest of the patient in the consultation, examination, or interview, to persons reasonably necessary for the transmission of the communication or information, or to persons who are participating in the diagnosis and treatment under the direction of the physician, naturopathic doctor, podiatrist, registered nurse, chiropractor, psychologist, social worker, marriage and family therapist or professional counselor, including the members of the patient’s family.

905.04(1)(bm)(bm) “Marriage and family therapist” means an individual who is licensed as a marriage and family therapist under subch. I of ch. 457 or an individual reasonably believed by the patient to be a marriage and family therapist.

905.04(1)(br)(br) “Naturopathic doctor” means a naturopathic doctor, as defined in s. 990.01 (22m), or an individual reasonably believed by the patient to be a naturopathic doctor.

905.04(1)(c)(c) “Patient” means an individual, couple, family or group of individuals who consults with or is examined or interviewed by a physician, naturopathic doctor, podiatrist, registered nurse, chiropractor, psychologist, social worker, marriage and family therapist or professional counselor.

905.04(1)(d)(d) “Physician” means a person as defined in s. 990.01 (28), or reasonably believed by the patient so to be.

905.04(1)(dg)(dg) “Podiatrist” means a person licensed under s. 448.63 or a person reasonably believed by the patient to be a podiatrist.

905.04(1)(dm)(dm) “Professional counselor” means an individual who is licensed as a professional counselor under subch. I of ch. 457, an individual who is exercising the privilege to practice, as defined in s. 457.50 (2) (s), in this state, or an individual reasonably believed by the patient to be a professional counselor.

905.04(1)(e)(e) “Psychologist” means a psychologist, as defined in s. 990.01 (31m), or a person reasonably believed by the patient to be a psychologist.

905.04(1)(f)(f) “Registered nurse” means a registered nurse who is licensed under s. 441.06 or who holds a multistate license, as defined in s. 441.51 (2) (h), issued in a party state, as defined in s. 441.51 (2) (k), or a person reasonably believed by the patient to be a registered nurse.

905.04(1)(g)(g) “Social worker” means a social worker, advanced practice social worker, independent social worker, or clinical social worker, as those terms are defined in subch. I of ch. 457, or an individual reasonably believed by the patient to be a social worker, advanced practice social worker, independent social worker, or clinical social worker.

905.04(2)(2) General rule of privilege. A patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made or information obtained or disseminated for purposes of diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s physical, mental or emotional condition, among the patient, the patient’s physician, the patient’s naturopathic doctor, the patient’s podiatrist, the patient’s registered nurse, the patient’s chiropractor, the patient’s psychologist, the patient’s social worker, the patient’s marriage and family therapist, the patient’s professional counselor or persons, including members of the patient’s family, who are participating in the diagnosis or treatment under the direction of the physician, naturopathic doctor, podiatrist, registered nurse, chiropractor, psychologist, social worker, marriage and family therapist or professional counselor.

905.04(3)(3) Who may claim the privilege. The privilege may be claimed by the patient, by the patient’s guardian or conservator, or by the personal representative of a deceased patient. The person who was the physician, naturopathic doctor, podiatrist, registered nurse, chiropractor, psychologist, social worker, marriage and family therapist or professional counselor may claim the privilege but only on behalf of the patient. The authority so to do is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

905.04(4)(4) Exceptions.

905.04(4)(a)(a) Proceedings for commitment, guardianship, protective services, or protective placement or for control, care, or treatment of a sexually violent person. There is no privilege under this rule as to communications and information relevant to an issue in probable cause or final proceedings to commit the patient for mental illness under s. 51.20, to appoint a guardian in this state, for court-ordered protective services or protective placement, for review of guardianship, protective services, or protective placement orders, or for control, care, or treatment of a sexually violent person under ch. 980, if the physician, registered nurse, chiropractor, psychologist, social worker, marriage and family therapist, or professional counselor in the course of diagnosis or treatment has determined that the patient is in need of commitment, guardianship, protective services, or protective placement or control, care, and treatment as a sexually violent person.

905.04(4)(am)(am) Proceedings for guardianship. There is no privilege under this rule as to information contained in a statement concerning the mental condition of the patient furnished to the court by a physician or psychologist under s. 54.36 (1) or s. 880.33 (1), 2003 stats.

905.04(4)(b)(b) Examination by order of judge. If the judge orders an examination of the physical, mental or emotional condition of the patient, or evaluation of the patient for purposes of guardianship, protective services or protective placement, communications made and treatment records reviewed in the course thereof are not privileged under this section with respect to the particular purpose for which the examination is ordered unless the judge orders otherwise.

905.04(4)(c)(c) Condition an element of claim or defense. There is no privilege under this section as to communications relevant to or within the scope of discovery examination of an issue of the physical, mental or emotional condition of a patient in any proceedings in which the patient relies upon the 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.

905.04(4)(d)(d) Homicide trials. There is no privilege in trials for homicide when the disclosure relates directly to the facts or immediate circumstances of the homicide.

905.04(4)(e)(e) Abused or neglected child or abused unborn child.

905.04(4)(e)2m.2m. There is no privilege for information contained in a report of child abuse or neglect that is provided under s. 48.981 (3).

905.04(4)(e)3.3. There is no privilege in situations where the examination of the expectant mother of an abused unborn child creates a reasonable ground for an opinion of the physician, registered nurse, chiropractor, psychologist, social worker, marriage and family therapist or professional counselor that the physical injury inflicted on the unborn child was caused by the habitual lack of self-control of the expectant mother of the unborn child in the use of alcohol beverages, controlled substances or controlled substance analogs, exhibited to a severe degree.

905.04(4)(em)(em) School violence. There is no privilege for information contained in a report of a threat of violence in or targeted at a school that is provided under s. 175.32 (3).

905.04(4)(f)(f) Tests for intoxication. There is no privilege concerning the results of or circumstances surrounding any chemical tests for intoxication or alcohol concentration, as defined in s. 340.01 (1v).

905.04(4)(g)(g) Paternity proceedings. There is no privilege concerning testimony about the medical circumstances of a pregnancy or the condition and characteristics of a child in a proceeding to determine the paternity of that child under subch. IX of ch. 767.

905.04(4)(h)(h) Reporting wounds and burn injuries. There is no privilege regarding information contained in a report under s. 255.40 pertaining to a patient’s name and type of wound or burn injury.

905.04(4)(i)(i) Providing services to court in juvenile matters. There is no privilege regarding information obtained by an intake worker or dispositional staff in the provision of services under s. 48.067, 48.069, 938.067 or 938.069. An intake worker or dispositional staff member may disclose information obtained while providing services under s. 48.067 or 48.069 only as provided in s. 48.78 and may disclose information obtained while providing services under s. 938.067 or 938.069 only as provided in s. 938.78.

905.04 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R121; 1975 c. 393; 1977 c. 61, 418; 1979 c. 32 s. 92 (1); 1979 c. 221, 352; 1983 a. 400, 535; 1987 a. 233, 264; Sup. Ct. Order, 151 Wis. 2d xxi (1989); 1991 a. 32, 39, 160; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 77, 275, 436; 1997 a. 292; 1999 a. 22; 2001 a. 80; 2005 a. 387, 434; 2005 a. 443 s. 265; 2007 a. 53, 97, 130; 2009 a. 113; 2013 a. 158; 2017 a. 135, 143; 2021 a. 22, 130, 131; 2023 a. 55; 2025 a. 232.

905.04 AnnotationSub. (4) (a) applies to proceedings to extend a commitment under ch. 975. State v. Hungerford, 84 Wis. 2d 236, 267 N.W.2d 258 (1978).

905.04 AnnotationBy entering a plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, the defendant lost the physician-patient privilege by virtue of sub. (4) (c) and the confidentiality of treatment records under s. 51.30 (4) (b) 4. State v. Taylor, 142 Wis. 2d 36, 417 N.W.2d 192 (Ct. App. 1987).

905.04 AnnotationDiscussing a psychotherapist’s duty to third parties for dangerous patients’ intentional behavior. Schuster v. Altenberg, 144 Wis. 2d 223, 424 N.W.2d 159 (1988).

905.04 AnnotationA defendant did not have standing to complain that a physician’s testimony violated a witness’s physician-patient’s privilege under this section; the defendant was not authorized to claim the privilege on the patient’s behalf. State v. Echols, 152 Wis. 2d 725, 449 N.W.2d 320 (Ct. App. 1989).

905.04 AnnotationUnder sub. (4) (g), the history of a pregnancy is discoverable. The court may permit discovery of the history as long as information regarding the mother’s sexual relations outside of the conceptive period is eliminated. Family Planning Health Services, Inc. v. T.G., 158 Wis. 2d 100, 461 N.W.2d 794 (Ct. App. 1990).

905.04 AnnotationBecause under sub. (4) (f) there is no privilege for chemical tests for intoxication, the results of a test taken for diagnostic purposes are admissible in an operating while under the influence and operating with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration trial. City of Muskego v. Godec, 167 Wis. 2d 536, 482 N.W.2d 79 (1992).

905.04 AnnotationA patient’s mere presence in a physician’s office is not within the ambit of this privilege. A defendant charged with trespass to a medical facility, s. 943.145, is entitled to compulsory process to determine if any patients present at the time of the alleged incident had relevant evidence. State v. Migliorino, 170 Wis. 2d 576, 489 N.W.2d 678 (Ct. App. 1992).

905.04 AnnotationThe patient’s objectively reasonable expectations of confidentiality from the medical provider are the proper gauge of the privilege. State v. Locke, 177 Wis. 2d 590, 502 N.W.2d 891 (Ct. App. 1993).

905.04 AnnotationWhen a patient’s medical condition is at issue, the patient-client privilege gives way. Wikrent v. Toys “R” Us, Inc., 179 Wis. 2d 297, 507 N.W.2d 130 (Ct. App. 1993).

905.04 AnnotationEx parte contacts between several treating physicians after the commencement of litigation did not violate this section. This section applies only to judicial proceedings and places restrictions on lawyers, not physicians. Limited ex parte contacts between defense counsel and plaintiff’s physicians are permissible, but ex parte discovery is not. Steinberg v. Jensen, 194 Wis. 2d 439, 534 N.W.2d 361 (1995).

905.04 AnnotationThere is no general exception to privileged status for communications gathered from incarcerated persons. State v. Joseph P., 200 Wis. 2d 227, 546 N.W.2d 494 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-2547.

905.04 AnnotationBoth initial sex offender commitment and discharge hearings under ch. 980 are “proceedings for hospitalization” within the exception to the privilege under sub. (4) (a). State v. Zanelli, 212 Wis. 2d 358, 569 N.W.2d 301 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-2159.

905.04 AnnotationThis section does not regulate the conduct of physicians outside of a courtroom. Accordingly it does not give a patient the right to exclude others from a treatment area. State v. Thompson, 222 Wis. 2d 179, 585 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-2744.

905.04 AnnotationThe psychotherapist-patient privilege does not automatically or absolutely foreclose the introduction of a therapeutic communication. When a therapist had reasonable cause to believe a patient was dangerous and that contacting police would prevent harm and facilitate the patient’s hospitalization, the patient’s statements fell within a dangerous patient exception to the privilege. State v. Agacki, 226 Wis. 2d 349, 595 N.W.2d 31 (Ct. App. 1999), 97-3463.

905.04 AnnotationRelease of records containing information of previous assaultive behavior by a nursing home resident was not prohibited by the physician-patient privilege. A nursing home resident does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in assaultive conduct. The information may be released by court order. Crawford v. Care Concepts, Inc., 2001 WI 45, 243 Wis. 2d 119, 625 N.W.2d 876, 99-0863.

905.04 AnnotationCommunications with an unlicensed therapist were privileged because of the patient’s reasonable expectation that they would be and because the unlicensed therapist worked under the direction of a physician. Johnson v. Rogers Memorial Hospital, Inc., 2005 WI 114, 283 Wis. 2d 384, 627 N.W.2d 890, 03-00784.

905.04 AnnotationFiling a mandatory report under s. 48.981 (3) does not waive any privilege from testifying. Sub. (4) (e) 2m. provides only that there is no patient-provider privilege for “information contained in a report” of child abuse or neglect that is provided under s. 48.981 (3). State v. Hineman, 2023 WI 1, 405 Wis. 2d 233, 983 N.W.2d 652, 20-0226.

905.04 AnnotationThere is no exception to the privilege in sub. (2) for court-ordered in camera review of a victim’s privately-held, privileged health records upon a criminal defendant’s motion. Shiffra, 175 Wis. 2d 600 (1993), is overruled. State v. Johnson, 2023 WI 39, 407 Wis. 2d 195, 990 N.W.2d 174, 19-0664.

905.04 AnnotationThe privilege under this section is not a principle of substantive law, but merely an evidentiary rule applicable at all stages of civil and criminal proceedings, except actual trial on the merits in homicide cases. 64 Atty. Gen. 82.

905.04 AnnotationA person claiming a privilege in a communication with a person who was not a medical provider under sub. (1) (d) to (g) has the burden of establishing that he or she reasonably believed the person to be a medical provider. United States v. Schwenson, 942 F. Supp. 902 (1996).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 110 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: State v. Patrick J. Lynch, 2016 WI 66 (Wis. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Patrick J. Lynch, 2016 WI 66 (Wis. 2016). · cites it 135× “" Wis. Stat. § 905.04 (2). 5 Throughout this opinion, we use the pronoun "he" when referring to a defendant because the defendant, Lynch, is a male.”

Johnson v. Rogers Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 2005 WI 114 (Wis. 2005). · cites it 74× “See Wis. Stat. § 905.04 (2). The court also held that the presence of the "silent advocate" did not invade the privilege because that person was "present to further the interest of the patient" or was "participating in the diagnosis and treatment.”

Steinberg v. Jensen, 534 N.W.2d 361 (Wis. 1995). · cites it 50× “[1] This case requires a determination of whether the court of appeals has correctly interpreted the physician-patient privilege, sec. 905.04, Stats. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo.”

State v. Alan S. Johnson, 2023 WI 39 (Wis. 2023). · cites it 21× “See Wis. Stat. § 905.04 (2) (2019- No. 2019AP664-CR 20).”

State v. Denis L.R., 2005 WI 110 (Wis. 2005). · cites it 32× “One of those exceptions, Wis. Stat. § 905.04 (4)(e)2., concerns child abuse.”

Crawford v. Care Concepts, Inc., 2001 WI 45 (Wis. 2001). · cites it 42× “1 The court of appeals held that information, including records and reports, relating to a nonparty's assaultive or disruptive conduct was not protected by the physician-patient privilege, Wis. Stat. § 905.04 (1997-98). 2 We agree.”

Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996). · cites it 6× “740, § 110/10(a)(9) (1994); Wis. Stat. § 905.04 (4)(d) (1993-1994), and in the District of Columbia when it pertains to any crime "inflicting injuries" upon persons, see D.”

Schuster v. Altenberg, 424 N.W.2d 159 (Wis. 1988). · cites it 10× “In particular, sec. 905.04, Stats., accords to a patient a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent another person from disclosing confidential patient-therapist communications.”

State v. Post, 541 N.W.2d 115 (Wis. 1995). · cites it 8× “This concession was appropriate as this court has previously ruled that chapter 975 continuation of control hearings fall within the statutory exception to privilege as "proceedings for hospitalization.”

State v. Locke, 502 N.W.2d 891 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 15× “Locke claimed that Wheelock's testimony should be suppressed because under sec. 905.04, Stats., the evidence was privileged.”

State v. Agacki, 595 N.W.2d 31 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 29× “We conclude, however, that Agacki's disclosure that he was carrying a gun was not a privileged communication under § 905.04, STATS., and, therefore, that the trial court correctly considered evidence of the communication.”

State v. Speese, 545 N.W.2d 510 (Wis. 1996). · cites it 16× “First, as the State's brief points out, this case raises the issue of who can assert and waive the physician-patient privilege, Wis. Stat. § 905.04 (2), when the patient whose medical records are sought is a minor.”

Show all 110 citing cases →

— Wis. Stat. § 905.04(1) — 1 case

State Ex Rel. Pflaum v. State Psychology Examining Bd., 331 N.W.2d 614 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983).

— Wis. Stat. § 905.04(1)(b) — 4 cases

Johnson v. Rogers Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 2005 WI 114 (Wis. 2005). “See Wis. Stat. § 905.04 (2). The court also held that the presence of the "silent advocate" did not invade the privilege because that person was "present to further the interest of the patient" or was "participating in the diagnosis and treatment.”

Steinberg v. Jensen, 534 N.W.2d 361 (Wis. 1995). “[1] This case requires a determination of whether the court of appeals has correctly interpreted the physician-patient privilege, sec. 905.04, Stats. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo.”

State v. Agacki, 595 N.W.2d 31 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “We conclude, however, that Agacki's disclosure that he was carrying a gun was not a privileged communication under § 905.04, STATS., and, therefore, that the trial court correctly considered evidence of the communication.”

State v. D. J. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wis. Stat. § 905.04(1)(d) — 1 case

— Wis. Stat. § 905.04(2) — 48 cases

State v. Alan S. Johnson, 2023 WI 39 (Wis. 2023). “See Wis. Stat. § 905.04 (2) (2019- No. 2019AP664-CR 20).”

State v. Patrick J. Lynch, 2016 WI 66 (Wis. 2016). “" Wis. Stat. § 905.04 (2). 5 Throughout this opinion, we use the pronoun "he" when referring to a defendant because the defendant, Lynch, is a male.”

State v. Zanelli, 569 N.W.2d 301 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997).

— Wis. Stat. § 905.04(3) — 8 cases

State v. Denis L.R., 2005 WI 110 (Wis. 2005). “One of those exceptions, Wis. Stat. § 905.04 (4)(e)2., concerns child abuse.”

Daniel A. v. Walter H., 537 N.W.2d 103 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995).

Steinberg v. Jensen, 519 N.W.2d 753 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).

State v. Denis L.R., 2004 WI App 51 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004).

State v. SH, 465 N.W.2d 238 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990).

— Wis. Stat. § 905.04(4) — 9 cases

State v. Denis L.R., 2005 WI 110 (Wis. 2005). “One of those exceptions, Wis. Stat. § 905.04 (4)(e)2., concerns child abuse.”

State v. Alan S. Johnson, 2023 WI 39 (Wis. 2023). “See Wis. Stat. § 905.04 (2) (2019- No. 2019AP664-CR 20).”

State v. Allen, 546 N.W.2d 517 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).

State v. Speese, 528 N.W.2d 63 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995).

— Wis. Stat. § 905.04(4)(a) — 7 cases

State v. Post, 541 N.W.2d 115 (Wis. 1995). “This concession was appropriate as this court has previously ruled that chapter 975 continuation of control hearings fall within the statutory exception to privilege as "proceedings for hospitalization.”

State v. Zanelli, 569 N.W.2d 301 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997).

State v. Joseph P., 546 N.W.2d 494 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).

Milwaukee Cnty. Prot. Servs. Mgmt. Team v. K.S., 405 N.W.2d 78 (Wis. 1987).

— Wis. Stat. § 905.04(4)(b) — 8 cases

State v. Alan S. Johnson, 2023 WI 39 (Wis. 2023). “See Wis. Stat. § 905.04 (2) (2019- No. 2019AP664-CR 20).”

In Re Mental Condition of Billy Jo W., 514 N.W.2d 707 (Wis. 1994).

In Re Mental Condition of Billy Jo W., 497 N.W.2d 135 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).

State v. Joseph P., 546 N.W.2d 494 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).

Milwaukee Cnty. Prot. Servs. Mgmt. Team v. K.S., 405 N.W.2d 78 (Wis. 1987).

— Wis. Stat. § 905.04(4)(c) — 20 cases

Vincent Milewski v. Town of Dover, 2017 WI 79 (Wis. 2017).

Steinberg v. Jensen, 519 N.W.2d 753 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).

Zintek v. Perchik, 471 N.W.2d 522 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991).

State v. Stanley, 2012 WI App 42 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012).

— Wis. Stat. § 905.04(4)(d) — 5 cases

City of Muskego v. Godec, 482 N.W.2d 79 (Wis. 1992).

State v. Kennedy, 396 N.W.2d 765 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986).

United States v. D.F., 857 F. Supp. 1311 (E.D. Wis. 1994).

State v. Patrick J. Lynch (Wis. 2016).

— Wis. Stat. § 905.04(4)(e) — 4 cases

State v. Denis L.R., 2005 WI 110 (Wis. 2005). “One of those exceptions, Wis. Stat. § 905.04 (4)(e)2., concerns child abuse.”

State v. Joseph P., 546 N.W.2d 494 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).

State v. Jeffrey L. Hineman, 2023 WI 1 (Wis. 2023).

— Wis. Stat. § 905.04(4)(f) — 4 cases

City of Muskego v. Godec, 482 N.W.2d 79 (Wis. 1992).

State v. Allen, 546 N.W.2d 517 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).

State v. Straehler, 2008 WI App 14 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007).

State v. Vanderhoef, 928 N.W.2d 798 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019).

— Wis. Stat. § 905.04(4)(g) — 2 cases

Fam. Plan. Health Servs., Inc. v. T.G., 461 N.W.2d 794 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990).

In Re Paternity of JSP, 461 N.W.2d 794 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990).

— Wis. Stat. § 905.04(4)(h) — 2 cases

Ortiz v. Aurora Health Care, Inc. (In Re Ortiz), 430 B.R. 523 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2010).

Ortiz v. Aurora Health Care, Inc. (In Re Ortiz), 464 B.R. 807 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2012).

— Wis. Stat. § 905.04(l)(b) — 7 cases

State v. Locke, 502 N.W.2d 891 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “Locke claimed that Wheelock's testimony should be suppressed because under sec. 905.04, Stats., the evidence was privileged.”

Crawford v. Care Concepts, Inc., 2001 WI 45 (Wis. 2001). “1 The court of appeals held that information, including records and reports, relating to a nonparty's assaultive or disruptive conduct was not protected by the physician-patient privilege, Wis. Stat. § 905.04 (1997-98). 2 We agree.”

Johnson v. Rogers Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 2001 WI 68 (Wis. 2001).

State v. Joseph P., 546 N.W.2d 494 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).

— Wis. Stat. § 905.04(l)(c) — 2 cases

State v. Locke, 502 N.W.2d 891 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “Locke claimed that Wheelock's testimony should be suppressed because under sec. 905.04, Stats., the evidence was privileged.”

United States v. Schwensow, 942 F. Supp. 402 (E.D. Wis. 1996).

— Wis. Stat. § 905.04(l)(d) — 2 cases

United States v. Schwensow, 942 F. Supp. 402 (E.D. Wis. 1996).

— Wis. Stat. § 905.04(l)(e) — 1 case

Johnson v. Rogers Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 2001 WI 68 (Wis. 2001).

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.