Roberts v. Superior Court
107 Cal. Rptr. 309, 508 P.2d 309, 9 Cal. 3d 330 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff who sues for general physical injuries does not waive the psychotherapist-patient privilege as to prior psychiatric treatment records. For the patient-litigant exception to apply, the plaintiff must specifically place their mental or emotional condition at issue, and the privileged information sought must be directly relevant to that specific condition.
Facts:
- In September 1969, Janet Roberts received psychiatric treatment from Dr. Ernest W. Ely for a few months following an overdose of pills.
- Another doctor's notes indicated Roberts had experienced backaches intermittently since September 1969.
- On March 24, 1971, Roberts was injured in a car collision with a vehicle owned and operated by Alice and Henry Weist.
- Following the 1971 accident, Roberts suffered severe pain in her neck and back, accompanied by dizzy spells and headaches.
- Doctors who examined Roberts after the 1971 accident noted that her physical tenderness seemed out of proportion to their clinical findings, but they did not draw a correlation between her current injuries and her prior psychiatric treatment.
- Six days after the accident, Roberts signed a general authorization form provided by the Weists' insurance carrier, permitting the release of information regarding her 'medical history, physical condition and treatment rendered.'
Procedural Posture:
- Janet Roberts (petitioner) filed a personal injury lawsuit against Alice and Henry Weist (defendants) in the Butte Superior Court, the trial court of first instance.
- During discovery, defendants subpoenaed the records of Roberts's psychotherapist, Dr. Ely.
- Dr. Ely refused to produce the records, asserting the psychotherapist-patient privilege on Roberts's behalf.
- Defendants filed a motion to compel production of the records.
- The trial court granted the motion to compel, ordering Dr. Ely's records to be deposited with the court clerk under a protective order allowing inspection only by counsel and their medical examiners.
- Roberts petitioned the California Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition to bar the enforcement of the trial court's discovery order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff who sues for general physical injuries, alleging they were rendered 'sick, sore, lame, and disabled,' waive the psychotherapist-patient privilege as to their prior psychiatric records when they do not claim specific damages for mental or emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Burke, J.
No. A plaintiff who sues for general physical injuries does not waive the psychotherapist-patient privilege simply by alleging they were rendered 'sore, lame, and disabled.' The patient-litigant exception applies only when a patient specifically tenders their mental or emotional condition as an issue in the litigation. Roberts's complaint alleged only physical injuries, and the defendants' speculation that her pain might have a 'mental component' is insufficient to overcome the privilege. Citing its prior decision in In re Lifschutz, the court held that the exception is to be narrowly construed, compelling disclosure only of communications directly relevant to the specific mental condition voluntarily placed at issue by the patient. To allow discovery of past psychiatric treatment in every personal injury case would defeat the purpose of the privilege. Roberts did not waive the privilege by disclosing the purpose of her treatment, by her other doctors' inadvertent disclosure of the records, or by signing a vague, pre-litigation consent form for an insurance company, as such a form must be strictly construed and did not clearly authorize the release of psychiatric records.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens the psychotherapist-patient privilege in California, establishing that it is to be liberally construed in favor of the patient. It clarifies that the patient-litigant exception is narrow and is not triggered by a standard personal injury claim that does not specifically seek damages for mental or emotional distress. The ruling sets a high bar for defendants seeking discovery of a plaintiff's psychiatric history, requiring them to show more than mere speculation about a 'mental component' to physical injuries. This precedent protects patient privacy and prevents defendants from using the discovery of sensitive psychiatric records as a tool for harassment or to coerce a settlement.
Unlock the full brief for Roberts v. Superior Court