Runyon v. Smith
163 N.J. 439, 749 A.2d 852, 2000 N.J. LEXIS 524 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A psychologist who discloses confidential patient information in a custody dispute without a court’s prior in camera review and determination of necessity, or absent a clear statutory duty to warn of imminent serious physical violence, may be liable for malpractice due to a violation of the psychologist-patient privilege.
Facts:
- Plaintiff was a patient of Dr. Smith, a psychologist.
- Plaintiff and Mr. Runyon were involved in a child custody dispute.
- Dr. Smith testified during a hearing in the custody dispute between plaintiff and Mr. Runyon.
- During her testimony, Dr. Smith disclosed confidential information about the plaintiff and also produced a related report.
- Dr. Smith's testimony and report occurred approximately six months after her last session with the plaintiff.
- The record of the case did not demonstrate that the children were exposed to danger of a degree that approached imminent serious physical violence.
- Dr. Smith had also provided joint counseling to both the plaintiff and Mr. Runyon.
Procedural Posture:
- A custody hearing occurred in the Family Part (trial court) where Dr. Smith testified and submitted a report.
- Plaintiff filed a malpractice complaint against Dr. Smith in the Law Division (trial court).
- The Law Division dismissed the plaintiff's malpractice complaint.
- Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey (intermediate appellate court), with the plaintiff as the appellant and Dr. Smith as the appellee.
- The Appellate Division reversed the Law Division's dismissal, finding that Dr. Smith's testimony violated the psychologist-patient privilege and that she could be liable for damages.
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 psychologist violate the psychologist-patient privilege and incur potential liability for damages when she testifies and discloses confidential patient information in a child custody dispute without a prior court determination that disclosure is required or that there is an imminent danger to third parties?
Opinions:
Majority - PER CURIAM
Yes, a psychologist violates the psychologist-patient privilege and may be liable for damages if confidential patient information is disclosed in a custody dispute without a prior court determination that disclosure is required or an imminent danger triggering a duty to warn. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division's judgment, emphasizing that the Family Part did not conduct the in camera review contemplated by Kinsella v. Kinsella, nor did it make a determination on the record that evidence of fitness from other sources was inadequate. Therefore, the standards and procedures for piercing the privilege were not observed. The Court further clarified that the facts did not meet the statutory duty to warn, as there was no evidence of imminent serious physical violence, and the six-month interval between the last session and testimony was inconsistent with 'imminent' danger. The Court concluded that a psychologist who fails to assert the patient's privilege and discloses confidential information without a court determination may be liable for damages to the patient, but expressed no view on the merits of plaintiff's specific damages claim.
Dissenting - O’Hern, J.
No, while Dr. Smith may have erred in not asserting the patient's privilege, the patient should not have a viable malpractice claim for 'recoverable damages' because the outcome of the custody dispute would have been the same regardless of the disclosure, and the emotional distress claimed was not sufficiently severe. Justice O'Hern agreed with the Appellate Division's Kinsella analysis but argued that the inquiry should extend to whether recoverable damages were incurred. He highlighted the conflicting duties of psychologists to maintain confidences and to protect others from harm, citing Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. However, he contended that for a malpractice claim, the plaintiff must prove that the therapist's conduct was the proximate cause of injury and that an actual injury was sustained. Analogizing to attorney malpractice, he stated that the plaintiff must effectively prove the 'case-within-a-case.' Since the trial court had already determined the custody dispute's outcome would have been the same even if Dr. Smith's evidence was excluded, and the plaintiff's claimed emotional distress (upset, embarrassment, anxiety) was not 'severe' enough under Buckley v. Trenton Saving Fund Soc., no recoverable damages were incurred. He suggested that professional responsibility issues might be better resolved by ethics disciplinary boards.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the robust protection of the psychologist-patient privilege in New Jersey, particularly within the sensitive context of child custody disputes. It establishes a high bar for disclosure, requiring rigorous judicial oversight through in camera review and specific findings as per Kinsella before the privilege can be pierced. The ruling also clarifies that the statutory 'duty to warn' exception is narrowly construed, demanding evidence of imminent serious physical violence. Consequently, psychologists face potential malpractice liability if they fail to assert the privilege and disclose confidential information without strictly adhering to these judicial and statutory safeguards, thereby underscoring the critical importance of procedural adherence in protecting patient privacy.
