If someone is suing for emotional suffering, their mental health records might have to be shown to the other side. In Florida, the law says that if a person claims mental anguish, they have to share their therapy records. But some courts are starting to question this rule. In other states and federal courts, it’s not so clear cut. In simple terms, the court in the Arzola case made its decision based on a previous case called Yoho v. Lindsley. However, the Yoho case had a more complicated solution to the issue at hand, which involved allowing a therapist to decide what evidence could be used in court. This approach raised concerns about fairness and the therapist’s relationship with the patient. So, the Yoho case is not really similar to the Arzola case, even though the court cited it as a basis for its decision. In a court case called Yoho, a person who was in a car accident claimed they were physically and mentally hurt, and had headaches. The defendant wanted to see the person’s medical records, but their doctor didn’t want to share them. The trial court said the doctor had to answer the defendant’s questions, but the defendant didn’t like that. The higher court said the trial court could still decide what information was relevant. They also said that if the patient doesn’t want to share their communications with their doctor, they have to prove those communications aren’t related to their claim. In the end, the court said only information directly related to the person’s mental or emotional condition had to be shared. The court in Nelson v. Womble decided that the defendant could see the counselorâs notes and records of the plaintiff and her husband because they were seeking compensation for mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life. The court said that since the plaintiffs were asking for money for their mental and emotional pain, then the records were relevant to the case and had to be shared. This decision continued the trend of making it easier for defendants to access personal medical records in lawsuits. In the case of Olges v. Dougherty, the court disagreed with the defendant’s request for the plaintiff to undergo a mental examination. The court said that not every car accident case requires a mental exam, especially if the plaintiff drops their claims for emotional damages. The court also mentioned federal cases where claims of mental anguish and embarrassment were not enough to require an examination. Overall, the court signaled a different opinion on the issue compared to previous rulings. Courts in other states have ruled that psychiatric records don’t have to be shared in regular negligence cases, such as car accidents, if the person claiming mental suffering hasn’t made it a big part of their case. They only have to share if they are specifically claiming a psychiatric injury or condition. This is to protect their privacy. This is important for lower courts to consider before making someone share their private records. This passage discusses court cases and legal rulings related to the privacy of psychiatric records. It explains that in some cases, patients’ records were not allowed to be shared in court, while in others they were. It also mentions different rules in different states and how courts have approached the issue of privacy for mental health records. Overall, the passage shows that there is a lot of complexity and different opinions on this topic in the legal system. David M. Lewis is a lawyer who works on cases involving insurance claims and civil litigation. He is a member of the Trial Lawyers Section and is dedicated to serving the public and improving the justice system.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-shield-and-the-sword-regarding-disclosure-of-private-psychiatric-records-as-a-routine-element-of-discovery-in-florida-auto-accident-litigation/
Leave a Reply