In th e S u p re m e Co u rt o f Ge o rg ia

De c id e d : Ju n e 3 0 , 2 01 4

S 1 4 A0 9 2 6 . COOKS E Y v . LANDRY, e t a l.

THOMP S O N, Ch ie f Ju stic e

.

Be fo re h e c om m itte d su ic id e in S e p te m b e r 20 12

, twe n ty -two -y e a r o ld

Ch risto p h e r La n d ry fo r se v e ra l y e a rs h a d b e e n u n d e r th e c a re of a p p e lla n t Crit

Co o k se y

, a p sy c h ia trist. In Au g u st 2 0 1 2

, D r. Co o k se y pre sc rib e d b o th S e ro q u e l

a n d C y m b a lta fo r Ch risto ph e r, two d ru g s th a t c o n ta in a “ b la c k b o x wa rn in g ”

fro m th e F o od a nd Dru g A d mi n i s t r a tio n wh ic h wa rn s of a n in c re a se d risk o f

su ic id a l th in k in g a n d b e h a vio r in y o u n g ad u l t s a n d re c om m e n d s th a t m e d ic a l

p ro fe ssio n a ls p re sc rib in g th e d ru g s m o n ito r p a tie n ts fo r wo rse n in g o r e m e rg e n t

su ic id a l th o u g h ts a

n d b e h a v io r. F o llo win g Ch ris t o p h e r’s d e a th

, h is p a re n ts,

a p p e lle e s Lisa a n d Mic ha e l La n d ry

, 1 b e g a n in ve stig a tin g a p o te n tia l m e d ic a l

m a lp ra c tic e

, wro n g fu l de a th

, a n d su rv iv a l a c tio n a g a in st Dr. C o ok se y an d m a d e

m u ltip le re q u e sts fo r c op ie s o f Ch risto p h e r’s psy c h ia tric re c o rd s. Dr. Co o k se y

1 Michael Landry

has been appointed adm inistrator of Christopher’s estate.o n e a c h o c c a sio n re fu se d t o p r o d u c e th e re c o rd s, c la im in g th e y a re p ro te c te d

fro m d isc lo su re b y Ge o rg ia ’s p sy c h ia trist-p a tie n t priv ile g e

. Se e O CGA § 2 4 -5

-

5 0 1 (a ). 2

Ap p e lle e s file d a c o m

p la in t se e k in g a p e rm a n e n t in ju n c tio n d ire c tin g D r.

Co o k se y to tu rn ov e r a ll o f Ch risto p h e r’s p sy c hia tric re c o rd s. Ap p e lle e s a rg u e d

th a t with o u t th e re c o rd s th e y wo u ld b e un a b le to in v e stig a te wh e th e r a c a u se o f

a c tio n e x ists a g a in st Dr. Co o k se y

, an d th e y wo u ld b e u n a b le to g a in re le v a n t a n d

n e c e ssa ry in fo r

m a t i o n u p o n wh ic h to b a se th e e x p e rt a ffid a v it re q u ire d to in itia te

a m e d ic a l m a lp ra c tic e c l a i m. S e e OCGA § 9-1 1 -9 .1

. Th e tria l c o u rt, with o u t

re v ie win g Dr. Co o kse y ’ s file s, c o n c lu d e d th a t e q u ity su pp orte d a p p e lle e s’

p o sitio n a nd issu e d a n in

ju n c tio n d ire c tin g Dr. Co o k se y to p ro du c e to a p p e lle e s

“ a ll re c o rd s p e rta in in g to th e m e d ic a l tre a tm e n t an d h i s t o ry o f Ch risto p h e r

Mic h a e l La n d ry .” 3 D r. Co ok se y a p p e a le d fro m th e tria l c o u rt’s o rd e r a n d file d

2 OCGA § 2 4-5-501 (a) (5) provides that certain admissions and communications, including

communications b etween a psy chiatrist and p a t i e n t

, a r e e xc l uded from evidence on g rounds of public

policy

. Subsection (a) (8) also ex cludes from evidence as privileg ed “[ c] ommunications between

or among any psy chiatrist, psy cholog ist, licensed clinical social worker, clinical nurse specialist in

p s y c h i a t r i c / m e n t a l h e a l t h

, l i censed marriag e and family therapist, and lice n s e d p r o f e s s i o n a l c o u

n s e l o r

who are rendering psy chotherapy or have rendere d p s y c h o t h e r a p y t o a patient, reg a

rding that patient' s

communications which are otherwise privileg ed by parag raph (5), (6), or (7) of this subsection[ .] ”

3 The requested r ecords do not appear to h ave been provided to the trial c ourt and have not

been made part of the record on appeal.

2a m otio n fo r a n e m e rg e n c y sta y wh ic h th is C o urt gra n te d. Ha vin g re v ie we d th e

re c o rd a n d a

p p lic a b le la w

, we c o n c lu d e th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d to th e e x te n t it

e x e rc ise d its e q u itab le p o we rs to o rd e r th e p ro d u c tio n o f in fo rm a tio n p ro te c te d

fro m d isc lo su re b y Ge org ia la w. Ac c o rd in g ly

, we a ffirm th e o rd e r o f th e tria l

c o u rt in p a rt a n d re ve rse a n d re m a n d to th e tria l c o u rt in p a rt fo r fu rth e r a c tio n

c o n siste n t with th is o p in io n

.

1

. Th e issu e to b e d e c id e d b y th e tria l c o u rt in th is a p p e a l wa s a le g a l o n e

,

w h e th e r th e p sy c hia tric re c o rd s so u g h t b y a p p e lle e s c on s t i t

u t e p r i v i l e g e d m a t t e r s

p ro te c te d fro m d isc lo su re u n d e r Ge o rg ia la w. Ac c o rd in g ly

, we re v ie w th e tria l

c o u rt’s le g a l d e te rm in a tio n s d e n o v o

. Ha n k la v

. P o ste ll, 2 93 Ga

. 6 9 2

, 69 3 (7 4 9

S E2 d 7 2 6 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (u sin g d e no v o sta n d a rd o f re v ie w wh e re issu e to b e d e c id e d

wa s p u re ly le g a l).

2

. Ap p e lle e s file d th e ir c o mp l ai n t se e k in g th e tria l c o u rt’s a ssista n c e

,

th ro u g h th e e x e rc ise o f its e q u ity ju risd ic tio n

, in o b ta in in g a c o p y o f

Ch risto p h e r’s psy c h ia tric re c o rd s. Co n c e d in g th a t th e re e x ists n o sta tu to ry

a u th ority re q u irin g Dr. Co o k se y t o p r od uc e th e re c o rd s, th e y a rg u e d th a t th e y

h a v e a rig h t to b rin g a c iv il c la im a g a in st Dr. C o ok se y

, se e OCGA § 5 1 -1 -2 7

a n d OCGA § 5 1 -4 -4

, th a t th e p s y c h ia trist-p a tie nt p riv ile ge fo u n d in OCGA §

32 4 -5 -5 0 1 (a ) im p e d e s th e ir rig h t b y p ro te c tin g p sy c h ia tric -p a tie n t

c o m m u nic a tio n s fro m d isc lo su re

, a nd th e re fo re

, th e le g a l p ro c e sse s a v a ilab le to

th e m p ro v id e a

n in a de q ua te re m e d y

. In su p p o rt of th e ir arg u m e n t, th e y c o rre c tly

c ite b o th sta tu te s a

n d c a s e la w re c og n iz in g th e a u th o rity b e sto we d u p o n o u r

su p e rio r c o u rts to a ssist th ro u g h e q u ity “ e v e r y p e rso n wh o is re m e d ile ss

e lse wh e re

. . . t o e n f

o r c e a ny rig h t re c o g n iz e d b y th e la w .” OCGA § 2 3 -1 -3 ;

OCGA § 2 3 -4 -2 0 ; Bro w n v

. Lib e rty Oil & Re fin in g Co rp

., 26 1 G a

. 2 1 4 (2 ) (4 0 3

S E2 d 8 0 6 ) (1 9 9 1 ). Th e tria l c o u rt, with o u t re v ie win g Dr. Co o k se y ’s file s a n d

w ith o u t m a k in g a n y distin c tio n b e twe e n p riv ile ge d a n d n o n -p riv ile g e d

in fo rm a tio n

, i n t u r n d ire c te d th a t th e e n tire ty o f Ch risto p h e r’s p sy c h ia tric

re c o rd s b e p ro v id e d to a p p e lle e s b a se d o n its c o n c lu sio n th a t e q u ity re q u ire d

th e ir pr o d u c tio n

. To h o ld o th e rwise

, th e tria l c o u rt c o n c lu d e d

, “ wo u ld

e ffe c tiv e ly tie [a

p p e lle e s’] h a n d s b e h in d th e ir b a c k [s] in p u rsu in g th e ir

in v e stig a tio n .”

W h ile we a g re e with a p p e lle e s th a t a c iv il a c tio n a risin g o u t o f

Ch risto p h e r’s su ic id e m a y b e a u th o riz e d u nd e r Ge o rg ia la w a n d a gre e with th e

tria l c o u rt th a t ap p lic a tio n o f th e p ro te c tio ns a ffo rd e d p sy c h ia trist-p a tie n t

c o m m u nic a tio n s b y § 2 4 -5 -5 0 1 (a ) m a y p o se a h a rd sh ip to a p p e lle e s in th e

4in v e stig a tio n of p o te n tia l c la im s a g a in st Dr. Co o k se y

, n e ith e r o f th e se fa c to rs

a u t h o riz e d th e tria l c o urt to re q u ire th e p ro d u c tio n o f priv ile g e d c o m m u n i c at i o n s

c o n tra ry to OCGA § 2 4 -5 -5 0 1 (a ). Th e first m a x im o f e qu i t y is th a t e q u ity

fo llo ws th e la w. Eq u ity c a nn o t, th e re fo re

, “o v e rrid e th e p o sitiv e e n a c tm e n ts o f

th e sta tu te s.” Le wis v

. Bd

. o f Ed . o f Lo w n d e s Co u n ty , 1 8 3 Ga . 6 8 7 , 6 9 0 (1 8 9

S E 2 3 3 ) (1 9 3 6 ). “ ‘ W h e r e rig h ts a re d e fin e d a n d e sta b lish e d b y e x istin g le g a l

p rin c ip le s, th e y m a y n o t b e c h a n g e d o r u nse ttle d in e q u ity .’ 2 7 A Am Ju r2 d 5 9 5

,

Eq u ity

, § 1 0 9 (1 9 9 6 ). Alth o u g h e q u ity d oe s se e k to d o c om p le te ju stic e

, OCGA

§ 23 -1 -7

, it m

u st d o so with in th e p a ra m e te rs o f th e la w.” Do lin g e r v

. Driv e r,

2 6 9 Ga

. 1 4 1 (4 ) (4 9 8 S E2 d 2 5 2 ) (1 9 9 8 ) (e q u ity c o u ld no t b e u se d to fo rc e

sc h o o l o ffic ia ls to a llo w stu de n ts to p a rtic ip a te in g ra d u a tio n c e re m o n y wh e n

th e y h a d n o le g a l rig h t to d o so ); Ho p k in s v

. Virg in ia Hig h la n d Asso c

., 2 4 7 Ga

.

Ap p

. 24 3

, 2 4 9 (5 4 1 S E 2 d 3 8 6 ) (2 0 0 0 ) (e q uity c ou ld n o t be u se d to g ra n t

e a se m e n t in se we r lin e wh e re e sta b l i s h e d la w p ro vid e d th a t pro pe rty is n o t

b u rd e n e d with e a se m e nt wh e n su b se q u e n t bo na fid e p u rc ha se r ta k e s with o u t

n o tic e o f th e e a se m e n t).

As a m a tte r o f p u b lic p o lic y

, Ge o rg ia l aw “ h a s lo n g pro vid e d fo r th e

c o n fid e n tia lity of c o m m u nic a tio n s b e twe e n a [p sy c h ia trist] a n d p a tie n t.”

5Ke n n e s t on e Ho sp

., In c

. v

. H o p so n, 2 7 3 Ga

. 1 4 5

, 1 4 8 (5 38 SE2 d 7 4 2 ) (2 0 0 0 ).

Th e prim a ry p u rp o se o f th e p riv ile g e “ is to e n c o ura g e th e pa tie n t to ta lk fre e ly

with ou t fe a r o f d isc lo su re a n d e m b a rra ssm e n t, th u s e na

b lin g th e p sy c h ia trist to

re n d e r e ffe c tiv e tre a tm e n t o f th e p a tie n t’s e m o tio na l or m e nta l diso rd e rs.” S ta te

v

. He re n d e e n

, 2 7 9 Ga

. 3 23

, 3 2 5 -3 2 6 (6 1 3 S E2 d 6 4 7 ) (2 0 0 5 ). Co m m u n ic a tio n s

b e twe e n c e rta i n m e n ta l he a lth p ro v id e rs, in c lu d in g c o m m u nic a tio n s b e twe e n

p sy c hia trists a n d p a tie n ts, a re

, th e re fo re

, p ro te c te d fro m d isc lo su re

. 4 OCGA §

2 4 -5 -5 0 1 (a ); H e re n d e e n

, s u p ra

, 2 7 9 Ga

. a t 3 2 7

. Th e p sy c h ia trist-p a tie n t

p riv ile g e re m a in s in v io la te e v e n th o u g h th e p a tie n t’s c a re a nd tre a tm e n t o r th e

n a tu re o r e x te n t of th e p a ti e n t ’ s in ju rie s a re p u t in issu e in a c iv il p ro c e e d in g

.

S e e OCGA § 2 4 -1 2 -1 (a ) a n d fo rm e r O CGA§ 2 4 -9 -4 0

. Th e s t r e n g th o f th e

p sy c hia trist-p a tie n t p riv ile ge is fu rth e r e v id e n t in th a t th e p riv ile g e is h e ld o n ly

b y th e p a tie n t a

n d wa iv e r o f th e p riv ile g e m u st be e x pre ssly m a d e b y th e p a tie n t,

o r, in th e a

b se n c e o f a

n e x p r e ss wa iv e r b y th e p a tie n t, “ on e se e k in g th e

d isc lo su re o f p riv ile g e d m e n ta l-h e a lth re c or d s mu st e sta blish a wa iv e r b y th e

4 The protections a f

f orded these com m

unications e xtend to com m unications between

or am ong a psy chiatrist and o ther m ental health prof essionals listed i n § 24-5-501 (a) (8) and

include a psy chiatrist’s conclusions that originated in com m unications between the patient

and the psy chiatrist. See Johnson v. State, 254 Ga. 591 (331 SE2d 578) (1985).

6p a tie n t’s ‘d e c isiv e u n e q u iv oc a l c o n d u c t re a so n a b ly in fe rrin g t h e i n te n t to

wa iv e [.] ’” 5 He re n d e e n , 2 7 9 Ga . a t 3 2 7

.

Mo re ov e r, a n d o f p rim a ry im p o rta n c e in th is c a se , is th e fa c t th a t u n lik e

o th e r re c o g n iz e d p riv ile g e s, th e p sy c h ia trist-p a tie nt p riv ile g e su rv iv e s th e d e a th

o f th e p a tie n t. 6 S e e S im s v

. S ta te

, 2 5 1 Ga

. 8 7 7

, 8 8 1 (3 1 1 S E 2 d 1 6 1 ) (1 9 8 4);

5 Apply ing these rules, our courts have determ ined that t he privilege is n o t w aived

when a p arty claim ing t he privilege puts at issue in a civil proceeding the nature and extent

o f h i s or her em otional or m ental injuries, see Mincey v. G eorgia Dept. of Co mmu n i t y

A f f airs, 308 Ga. App. 740, 7 45 (708 SE2d 644) ( 2011), is n ot waived when the p e r s o n

claim ing the p rivilege m akes disclosures in a separate, unr e l a t ed proceeding, see Bobo v.

State, 256 Ga. 357, 358 (349 SE2d 690) (1 9 86) and Tram m el v. Bradberry

, 256 Ga. App.

412, 424 (6) (568 SE2d 715) (2002), is not waived when com m u nications are m a de in the

presence o f a third party necessary to the patient’s treatm ent, Sim s, supra, 251 Ga. at 881, and

is not waived by the patient’s f ailure to tim ely object to a request f or privileged i nf

orm ation.

See Kennestone Hosp., Inc., supra, 273 Ga. a t 149 (“Given the im portance of the privilege

i n encouraging and protecting c onf idential com m

unications concerning the em otiona l a n d

m ental health of individuals,

. . . the silence a nd f ailure to a c t i n r esponse to a request f or

privileged m atter

. . . does not waive the party ’ s p r i v i lege by im plication.”). A t the sam e

tim e, the psy chiatrist-patient privilege i s lim ited in that it applies only to psy chiatrist-patient

com m unications, not to all psy chiatric records. Plunkett v. Ginsburg, 217 Ga. App. 20, 21

(456 SE2d 5 9 5 ) ( 1 9 9 5 )

. Thus, the f act of treatm ent and the dates on w hich treatm ent was

rendered are not privileged. See Herendeen, s upra, 279 Ga. at 327; Plunkett, supra, 217 Ga.

App. at 21. Nor are com m unications between or m ade in the presence of the p atient and any

third person who w as not present a s a necessary or custom ary participant in the consultation

and treatm ent of

the patient. See Sim s, supra, 251 Ga. at 881.

6 Appellees u rge this Court to d istinguish this case o n the ground t hat the psy chiatristpatient privilege has no application when the patient is deceased. T h is ar g u m e n t f ails f or

several reasons. First, it is clear f r om the cases c ited that the privilege survives the death of

the patient. Second, appellees’ argum ent ignores the reco g n ition that it is the prom ise of

conf identiality t hat encourages patients to o penly discuss their em o tional and m ental health

issues. If psy chiatrist-patient com m unications were protected only until t he patient’s death,

patients m ight n ot f

eel as f ree to m ake the disclosures n e c e s s a r y f or ef f ective t reatm ent,

7Bo g e ss v

. Ae tn a L ife I n s u r a n c e Co

., 1 2 8 Ga

. Ap p

. 1 9 0

, 19 2 (1 9 6 S E2 d 1 7 2 )

(1 9 7 3 ) (d isc ussin g a tto rn e y -c lie n t p riv ile g e ). C o nsiste nt with th e p ro te c tio n s

a ffo rd e d p sy c h ia trist-p a tie n t c o m mu n ic a tio n s e ve n a fte r a p a tie n t’s d e a th

, o u r

le g isla tu re h a s d e te rm in e d th a t a d e c e a se d p a tie n t’s re p re se n ta tiv e c an n o t wa iv e

th e p sy c h ia trist-p a tie n t p riv ile g e

. S e e OCGA § 3 1-3 3 -4 (p ro v id in g th a t sta tu te s

a u th oriz in g th e re le a se o f h e a lth re c ord s to a d e c e a se d p a tie n t’s re p re se n ta tiv e

“ sh a ll n o t a

p p ly to p sy c h ia tric

, p sy c h o lo gic a l, o r o th e r m e n ta l h e a lth re c o rd s o f

a p a tie n t” ); OCGA § 3 7 -3 -1 6 6 (a ) (8 .1 ) (a u th oriz in g m e n ta l h e a lth fa c ilitie s to

re le a se a d e c e a se d p a tie n t’s m e n ta l h e a lth re c o rd s “ to th e le g a l re p re se n ta tiv e o f

[th e ] d e c e a se d p a tie n t’s e sta te

, e x c e p t fo r m a tte rs p riv ile g e d u n d e r th e la ws o f

th is sta te .” ).

T h e d i sse n t, re c og niz in g th a t th e re is n o Ge o rg ia la w a u th o riz in g t h e

wa iv e r o f th e p sy c hia trist-p a tie n t p riv ile g e b y a d e c e a se d p a tie n t’s

re p re se n ta tiv e

, u rg e s th is Co u rt to n e v e rth e le ss c re a te su c h a rig ht a s “ a m a tte r

o f p u b lic p o lic y .” Ye t, it offe rs n o a uth o rity fo r th is Co u rt’s a d o p tio n

, a s “ a

m a tte r o f p u b lic p o lic y

, ” o f a ru lin g d ire c tly c o n tra ry to sta tu to ry la ws e n a c te d

thereby im

peding the prim ary goal of the privilege. See Herendeen, supra, 279 Ga. at 325-

326.

8b y ou r le g isla tu re b a se d o n “g ro u n d s o f p u b lic p o lic y

. ” 7 S e e O CGA § 24 -5 -5 0 1

(a ) (5 ) (sta tin g th a t p ro te c te d p sy c h ia trist-p a tie n t c om m u n ic a tio n s a re e x c lu d e d

fro m e v id e n c e o n “ g ro u nd s o f p u b lic p o lic y ” ). Th e d isse nt’s in te rp re ta tio n o f

th e c le a r la n g ua g e o f OCGA § 3 1 -3 3 -4 e x e m ptin g p sy c h ia tric re c o rd s fro m its

d i s c lo su re p ro v isio ns to m e a n th a t “ th e e sta te re p re se nta tiv e m a y [] w a iv e t h e

[p sy c h ia trist-p a tie n t] p riv ile g e o n b e h a lf o f th e d e c e a se d p a tie n t” c o m po rts with

n e ith e r lo g ic n o r ru le s o f sta tu to ry c o n stru c tio n

.

Be c a u se u n de r G e o rg ia la w c o nfid e n tia l c om m u nic a tio n s b e twe e n a

p sy c hia trist a n d p a tie n t m a y n o t b e d isc lo se d a b se nt wa iv e r b y th e p a tie n t a n d

a tria l c ou rt m a y n o t u tiliz e its e q u itab le p o we rs to a ffo rd re lie f c on tra ry to th e

la w, we c o n c lu de th e tria l c ou rt e rre d to th e e x te n t its o rd e r g ra n tin g in ju n c tiv e

re lie f re q u ire s th e d isc lo su re o f p riv ile g e d in fo rm a tio n . Ap p e lle e s c ite Bro wn

v

. Lib e rty Oil & Re fin e ry C o r p

. , s up ra

, 2 6 1 Ga

. 2 14

, a s a u th o rity fo r th e tria l

7 W e note i n r e s p o n s e t o the dissent that neither OCGA § 24-5-501 ( a) nor this

opinion should b e read as authorizing a psy chiatrist to shield him s elf or herself f rom potential

liability by asse r t i n g t h e psy chiatrist-patient privilege on the patient’s behalf

. See Dissent

at 3

. Instead, our opinion recognizes that the patient is the holder of the psy chiatrist-patient

privilege and a

bsent waiver by the patient

, privileged com m unications m ay n ot be disclosed.

Sim ilarly

, w e do not f

ail “to r ecognize the right of a patient’s s u rvivors to waive the

privilege,” i d. (em

phasi s a d d e d )

, inasm

uch as t hey currently have no such right under

Georgia law.

9c o u rt’s u s e o f its e q u itab le p o we rs in th is c a se

. Bro wn

, h owe v e r, is

d istin g u ish a

ble

. T h e p la in t i f

f s i n Bro wn we re m in or c h ild re n se e k in g to

m a in ta in a wro n g fu l d e a th a c tio n a risin g o u t o f th e ir m o t h e r’s de a th

. Th e

c h ild re n ’s fa th e r, wh o wa s b y sta tu te g iv e n a rig h t to p ursu e th e wro n g fu l d e a th

c la im

, c ou ld no t b e lo c a te d a n d wo u ld no t p u rsu e su c h a c la im

. S e e OCGA §

5 1 -4 -2 (a ). W e h e ld th a t th e fa c tu a l c irc u m sta n c e s o f th a t c a se d e m an d e d th e

e x e rc ise o f th e tria l c o u rt’s e q u ita b le p o w e rs b e c a u se th e m in or c hild re n h a d n o

o th e r le g a l rig h t to m a in ta in a n a c tio n fo r th e wro n g fu l d e a t h o f th e ir m o th e r.

Bro w n

, su p ra

, 26 1 Ga

. a t 2 16

. By a llo win g th e c hild re n to p u rsu e a wro n g fu l

d e a th a c tio n

, e q u ity fo llo we d “ th e a n a lo g y o f th e la w wh e re n o ru le w a s d ire c tly

a p p lic a b le .” Se e O CGA § 23 -1 -6

. Co m p a re Le wis, su p ra

, 1 8 3 G a

. a t 6 9 0

(e q u ity c o u l d n o t b e u se d to o v e rrid e sta tu te lim itin g u se o f sc h o o l fu n d s to

p a y m e n t o f d e b ts fo r th e c u rre n t sc h o o l y e a r); P e rsa ll v

. S c ott, 64 Ga

. 7 6 7

, 7 6 9

(1 8 8 0 ).

In c o n tra st, OCGA § 2 4

- 5-5 0 1 (a ) is a po sitiv e sta tu to ry e n a c tm e n t

sp e c ific a lly p re c lu d in g th e re lie f so u g h t by a p p e lle e s in th e ir c o m

p la in t.

Mo re o v e r, u n lik e th e c h i l d r e n in Bro wn wh o we re se e k in g th e rig ht to p u rsu e

a wro n g fu l d e a th c la im

, a

p p e lle e s h a v e b o th th e le g a l rig h t to m a in ta in a n a c tio n

10fo r th e wro n g fu l d e a th o f th e ir so n a n d th e a b ility to se e k Dr. Co o kse y ’s file s

th ro u g h n o rm a l d isc o v e ry p ro c e d u re s. T h e fa c t th a t a pp e lle e s’ le g a l c la im m a y

b e m a de m o re d iffic u lt to p ro v e b e c a u se o f we ll-e sta b lish e d e v id e n tia ry ru le s o r

th a t pro p e r a

p p lic a tio n o f th e p sy c h ia trist-p a tie n t p riv ile g e with in su c h

p ro c e e d in g w o u ld lik e ly r e s u l t in th e n o n-d isc lo su re of p ro te c te d

c o m m u nic a tio n s d o e s n o t a

u th o riz e th e use o f a tria l c o u rt’s e q u ita b le p o we rs

c o ntra ry to we ll-e sta b lish e d la w. Th e in a b ility to d isc o v e r p o te n tia l e v id e n c e

with in a le g a l p ro c e e d in g fo llo win g p ro p e r a pp lic a tio n o f o u r ru le s o f e v id e n c e

is n o t th e sa m e a s h a vin g a n in c o m p le te le g a l re m e d y o r n o le g a l re m e d y a t a ll.

Ac c o rd in g ly

, we c o n c l u d e t h a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d by re qu irin g th e

d isc lo su re o f re c o rd s o r in fo rm a tio n re g ard in g p riv ile g e d c o m m u n ic a tio n s

b e twe e n Dr. Co o kse y a n d Ch risto p h e r a n d a m on g o r b e twe e n Dr. C o o k se y a n d

a n y o th e r m e nta l h e a lth p ro fe ssio n a l liste d in O C G A § 2 4 -5 -5 0 1 (a ) (8 ) wh o

w a s i n v olv e d in Ch risto p h e r’s tre a tm e n t a n d to w h o m p r o t e c t e d c o m m u n i c at i o n s

we re d i s c l o s e d

. Th a t po rtio n o f th e tria l c o u rt’s o rd e r, th e re fo re

, is re v e rse d

.

Th e tria l c ou rt’s o rd e r is a ffirm e d to th e e x te n t it re q u ire s d isc lo su re o f an y n o n

p riv ile g e d re c o rd s or in fo rm a tio n

. Be c a u se Dr

. Co o k s e y ’s file s we re n o t

re v ie we d b y th e tria l c o u rt a n d n o fi n d i n g s h a v e be e n m a d e a s to wh a t

11in fo rm a tio n is p riv ile g e d o r wh e th e r th e p riv ile g e m a y h a v e b e en w a iv e d b y

Ch risto p h e r, t h e c a s e is h e re b y re m a n d e d to th e tria l c o u rt. Th e tria l c o u rt is

d ire c te d o n re m a n d t o : (1 ) re v ie w Dr. Co o k se y ’s file s to d e te rm in e

, in

c o n fo rm a n c e with th is o p in io n a n d o th e r a p plic a b le la w, wh e th e r th e re a re a n y

n o n -p riv ile ge d re c o rd s or in fo rm a tio n in th e file s; (2 ) de te rm in e with re g a rd to

p riv ile g e d in f

o r m a tio n wh e th e r th e re wa s a wa iv e r o f th e p riv ile g e ; a n d (3 )

re q u ire th e tim e ly disc lo su re o f a ll n o n -p riv ile g e d re c o rd s a n d in fo rm a tio n a n d

a ll re c o rd s o r in fo rm a tio n fo r wh ic h th e p riv ile g e h a s b e e n wa iv e d.

3

. We c o n c lu d e b y e m

p h a siz in g t h a t it is n o sm a ll m a tte r fo r a c o u rt,

g iv e n its fo c u s o n th e p u rsu it o f tru t h an d j u stic e

, to h old th a t p o te n tia lly

re le v a n t e v id e n c e is sh ie ld e d fro m d isc lo su re

. O u r le gisla tu re

, h o we v e r, ha s

d e te rm in e d th a t th e p u b lic p o l i c i e s su p p o rtin g th e c re a tio n o f a m e n ta l h e a lth

p riv ile g e n e c e ssita te d e n a c tm e n t o f a n e a rly a b so lu te priv ile g e

, o ne with o u t

e x c e p tio n if th e pa tie n t is d e c e a se d o r th e n a tu re o f th e p a tie n t’s m e n ta l

c o n d itio n is p u t a t issu e

. As e x p la in e d b y th e Un ite d S ta te s S u p re m e Co urt

wh e n it re c o g n iz e d a psy c h ia trist- p a t ie nt p riv ile g e u n de r its o wn fe d e ra l

e v id e n tia ry ru le s, “if th e p u rp o se o f th e p riv ile g e is to b e se rv e d

, th e p a rtic ip a n ts

in t h e c o n fid e n tia l c o n v e rsa tio n ‘m u st b e a ble to p re d ic t with so m e d e g re e o f

12c e rt ain ty w h e th e r p a rtic u la r d isc u ssio n s will b e p ro te c te d

. A n u n c e rta in

p riv ile g e

, o r o n e wh ic h p u rp o rts to b e c e rta in b u t re su lts in wid e ly v a ry in g

a p p l i c a tio n s by th e c o urts, is little b e tte r th a n n o p riv ile g e a t a ll.’” Ja ffe e v

.

Re d m on d

, 5 1 8 U.S

. 1

, 1 8 (1 1 6 SCt 1 92 3, 1 35 LE2 d 3 37 ) (1 99 6), q u o tin g

Up jo hn Co

. v

. Un i t e d S ta te s, 4 4 9 U.S

. 38 3, 3 9 3 (1 0 1 S C t 6 77

, 6 6 LE2 d 5 8 4 )

(1 9 8 1 ) (d isc u ssin g a tto rn e y -c lie n t p r i v i l e g e ). Lik e wise

, to a llo w a tria l c o u rt,

th ro u g h th e e x e rc ise o f its e q u itab le p o we rs a n d its o wn n o tio n o f wh a t is rig h t,

to re qu ire disc lo su re of p riv ile g e d c o m m un ic a tio n s wo u ld b rin g u n c e rta in ty to

G e o rg ia ’s we ll-d e fin e d p sy c h ia trist-p a tie n t p riv ile g e a n d e visc e ra te i t s

e ffe c tiv e n e ss. Th e in te re sts pro te c te d by OCGA § 2 4 -5 -5 01 a re we ig h ty a n d

c a n n o t sim

p ly b e se t a sid e in e v e n th e m o st sy m p a th e tic o f c irc u m sta n c e s to

a llo w in d iv id u a l s to se a rc h th ro u g h psy c hia tric re c o rd s w ith th e h o p e o f

d isc o v e rin g e v id e n c e

. B o b o

, su p ra

, 25 6 Ga

. a t 3 60 (p sy c h ia trist-p a tie n t

p riv ile g e “ p ro h ib its th e d e fe n d a n t f r o m e n g a g in g in a ‘fish in g e x p e d itio n ’

re g a rd in g a

witn e ss’ c on su lta tio n s with a p sy c h ia trist.” ).

J u d g me n t a f

f i r m e d in p a rt a n d re v e rse d in p art a n d c a se re m a n d e d with

d ire c tio n

. All th e Ju stic e s c o n c u r, e x c e p t B e n h am a n d Hu nste in

, JJ., wh o

d isse nt.

13S 1 4 A0 9 2 6 . COOKS EY v

. LANDRY, e t a l.

B ENHAM , Ju stic e , d isse n tin g

.

In so m e ju risd ic tio n s, th e a u th o rity o f a d e c e a se d p a tie n t’s re p re se n ta tiv e

to wa iv e th e p sy c h ia trist-p a tie n t p riv ile ge in th e e v e n t o f th e p a tie n t’s d e a th is

p ro v id e d b y sta tu te

. 1 No e x p re ss a uth o rity is fo u n d in Ge o rg ia fo r th e wa iv e r,

b y a d e c e a se d p a tie n t’s re p re se n ta tiv e

, o f th e e v id e n tia ry p riv ile g e a ffo rd e d to

c o m m u nic a tio n s b e twe e n p sy c h ia trist a nd p a tie n t. I a m of th e op in io n th a t th is

Co u rt sh o u ld h o ld a s a m a tte r o f p u b lic p o lic y th a t, a t le a st in th e fa c tu a l

sc e n ario p re se n te d in th is c a se

, th e re p re se nta tiv e o f th e d e c e a se d p a tie n t sh o u ld

h a v e th e a

u th o rity to a c t o n b e h a lf o f th e d e c e a se d to wa iv e th e p s y c h i a tristp a tie n t p riv ile g e wh e re th a t re p re se n ta tiv e is a sse rtin g a c la im o n b e h a lf o f th e

1 I n California, for ex ample, the personal r epresentative of the patient, if the patient is dead,

is defined as a “holder of the privileg e” who may waive the psy chotherapist-patient privileg e, and

other statutory privileg es. Cal. Evid. Code §§ 912, 993. I n I llinois, see 740 I ll. Comp. State. 110/10

(a) (2) (1996) ( “Records or c ommunications ma y b e disclosed in a civil proceeding after the

recipient’s death when the r e c i p i e n t ’ s phy sical o r mental c ondition has been introduced a s an element

of a claim or defense b y any p arty claiming or defending throug h or as a beneficiary of the recipient,

provided the court f

inds, after in camera ex amination of the evidence, that it is relevant, probative,

and otherwise clearly admissible; that other satisfactory evidence is not available reg arding the facts

soug h t to be established b y such evidence; and that d isclosure is more important to the interests of

substantial justice than protection from any injury which disclosure is likely to cause.”).su rv iv o rs o r th e pa tie n t’s e sta te a g a in st th e v e ry h e a lth c a re p ro fe ssio n a l wh o is

a sse rtin g th e p riv ile g e a s a sh ie ld to su c h a c la im

. Th a t is n o t th e in te n d e d

p u rp o se o f th e e v id e n tia ry priv ile ge

. Its p u rp ose is to p ro te c t th e p a tie n t, a lo n g

with th e p u b lic in te re st in p ro m o tin g m e nta l h e a lth c a re

, n o t th e d o c to r. 2

In d isc u ssin g th e p u b lic p o lic y re a so ns b e h in d th e psy c h o th e ra p ist-p a tie n t

p riv ile g e , th is Co u rt h a s sta te d :

P ro t e c tin g c o n fid e n tia l m e n ta l h e a lth c o m m u n ic a tio n s fro m

d isc lo su re se rv e s a n im

p o rta n t p riv a te in te re st a n d a p u b lic in te re st.

J a ffe e v

. Re d

mo n d

, [5 1 8 U.S

. 1

, 1 1 (1 1 6 S Ct 1 9 2 3

, 1 3 5 LEd 2 d 3 3 7 )

(1 9 9 6 )]

. As fa r a s th e in d iv id ua l pa tie n t’s p r i v ate in te re st is

c o n c e rn e d, c o n fid e n tia lity is a sin e q u a no n fo r su c c e ssfu l

p s y c h o t h e r a p e u tic tre a tm e n t sin c e a psy c h o th e r a p i s t ’ s a b i l i t y t o h e l p

a pa tie n t is c om

p le te ly d e p e n d e n t u p o n th e p a tie n t’s willin g n e ss a n d

a b ility to ta lk fre e ly

, a n d a ssu ra n c e s o f c o n fid e n tia lity a nd p riv ile g e

fo ste r th e p sy c h o th e ra

p ist’s a b ility to fu n c tio n

. Id

., 5 1 8 U.S

. a t 1 0

, 1 1 6 S Ct 1 9 2 3

. S e e a lso Ke n n e sto n e Ho sp ita l v

. Ho pso n

, [2 7 3 Ga

. 1 4 5

, 14 8 (5 38 S E2 d 7 4 2 ) (2 0 0 0 )]

, w h e re we ob se rv e d t h a t “ t h e

p u rp o se o f th e p riv ile g e is to e n c o ura ge t h e p a tie n t to ta lk fre e ly

with o u t fe a r of d isc lo su re a n d e m b arra ssm e n t

, th u s e n a

b lin g th e

p sy c h ia trist to re n d e r e ffe c tiv e tre a tm e n t o f th e p a tie n t’s e m o tio n a l

o r m e n ta l diso rd e rs.” Sin c e “ th e m e nta l h e a lth o f o u r c itiz e n ry

. . . is a p u b lic g oo d o f tra nsc e n d e n t im p o rta nc e ,” th e p riv ile g e se rv e s

th e p u b lic in t e r e st “ b y fa c ilita tin g th e p ro v isio n o f a p p ro p ria te

tre a tm e n t fo r in d iv id u a ls su ffe rin g th e e ffe c ts o f a me n ta l o r

2 Compare, for ex ample, the Ohio statute g o verning the g eneral phy sician-patient privileg e,

which ex pressly

states that the privileg e does not apply in the case of a medical malpractice claim

broug ht by the patient or the estate of the patient if deceased, Ohio Rev. Code Ann §2317.02 (B ) ( 1)

(a) (iii).

2e m o tio n a l p ro b le m

. ” J a ffe e v

. R e d

mo n d

, su p ra

, 5 1 8 U.S

. a t 11

, 1 1 6

S Ct. 1 9 23

. ”

(P u n c tu a tio n om itte d

. ) S ta te v

. H e re nd e e n

, 2 79 Ga

. 3 2 3

, 3 2 5

- 3 26 (6 1 3 S E2 d

6 4 7 ) (2 0 0 5 ). Ho w iro n ic i t i s t o p e rm it th e d o c to r in th is c a se to a sse rt th e

p a tie n t’s p riv ile g e a

n d n o t t o re c o g n iz e th e rig h t o f th e p a tie n t’s su rv iv o rs to

wa iv e th e p ri v i l e g e

, th e re b y p e rm ittin g th e do c to r to sh ie ld h im se lf fro m

p o te ntia l l i a b ility fo r p ro v id in g u n su c c e ssfu l p sy c h oth e ra pe u tic tre a tm e n t o r

in e ffe c tiv e o r in a

p p ro p ria te tre a tm e n t, if th a t is wh a t th e se re c o rd s wo u ld

, in

fa c t, d e m o n stra te

.

If th e L a nd re y ’s so n h a d liv e d an d so u g h t to p ursu e a ma lp ra c tic e c la im

a g a in st Dr. C o o k se y fo r in ju ry fro m a tte m

p te d su ic id e s u sta in e d a s a re su lt o f

Co o k se y ’s a lle g e d ly n e g lig e n t tre a tm e n t, th e so n c ou ld h a v e wa iv e d th e

p riv ile g e

, so u g h t h i s t r e a tm e n t re c o rd s, a nd p re se n te d th e m a s e v id e n c e in th e

a c tio n

. S e e W

ile s v

. W ile s

, 2 6 4 Ga . 5 9 4 (1 ) (4 4 8 S E2 d 6 8 1 ) (1 9 9 4 ) (a p a tie n t

m a y wa iv e th e p sy c h ia trist-p a tie n t e v id e ntia ry p riv ile g e ). S i n c e th e p a tie n t,

h im se lf, c o u ld h a v e wa iv e d th e p riv ile ge fo r th e pu rp o se o f p ro te c tin g his rig h ts,

“ th e sa m e wa iv e r m a y b e m a d e b y th o se wh o re p re se n t h im a fte r h is d e a th

, fo r

th e pu rp o s e o f p ro te c tin g rig h ts a c q u ire d b y h im .” (Cita tio n an d p u n c tu a tio n

3o m it t e d

. ) Hie r v

. Fa rme rs M u t. Fire In s. Co

. , 1 0 4 Mo n t. 4 7 1 (6 7 P 2 d 8 3 1 )

(1 9 3 7 ) (re je c tin g a th ird p a rty ’s rig h t to a sse rt th e ph y sic ia n -p a tie n t p riv ile g e

with re s p e c t t o m e d ic a l re c o rd s re la tin g to th e d e c e a se d in su re d ’s m e n ta l

sta b ility a t th e tim e h e wa s a c c u se d o f se tt i n g f i r e to in su re d pro p e rty

, a n d

re c o g n iz in g th e rig h t o f th e d e c e a se d ’s re p re s e n t a t i v e to wa iv e th e priv ile ge ).

Iro nic a lly , a g a in , th e e ffe c t o f th e m a jo rity o pin io n is to sh ie ld th e p sy c h ia trist

fro m d isc lo su re o f c o n fid e n tia l in fo rm a tio n in th e e v e n t th e a lle ge d m a lp ra c tic e

re su lts in th e p a tie n t’s d e a th

, e v e n th o u gh d isc lo su re w o uld be pe rm itte d in th e

e v e n t th e sa m e a lle g e d m a lp ra c tic e re su lts in a le ss c a ta stro p h ic in ju ry b e c a use

th e p a tie n t su rv iv e s.

Wh e n th e su rv iv o rs o f a d e c e d e n t b rin g a m e d ic a l m a lp ra c tic e a c tio n

re la tin g to th e d e c e d e n t’s d e a th

, th e su rv iv o rs m a y a sse rt th e d e c e d e n t’s

p riv ile g e a

n d pre v e n t d i s c o v e ry o f his o r h e r p sy c h ia tric re c o rd s b y th e

d e fe n d a n t to th e a c tio n

. S e e Dy n in v

. Ha ll

, 20 7 Ga

. A p p

. 3 3 7 (3 ) (4 2 8 S E2 d

8 9 ) (1 9 9 3 ). Bu t th is do e s n o t m e a n th e de fe n d a n t to th e m a lp ra c tic e a c tio n c a n

a sse rt th e p riv ile g e in te n d e d to p r o te c t th e p a tie n t’s in te re st a s a sh ie ld to

liab ility

. Th e sta tu to ry p riv ile g e e x ists fo r th e b e n e fit o f th e p a tie nt; th us it is th e

p a tie n t w h o is e n title d to th e be n e fits o f th e p riv ile g e

. S e e W ile s v

. W ile s

, su pra

,

42 6 4 Ga

. a t 5 9 5

. It rin g s h o llo w fo r th e m a jo rity to sa y its h old in g d o e s n o t

sh ie ld th e p sy c h ia trist fro m p o te n tia l liab ility bu t m e re ly re c o g n iz e s th e

p sy c hia trist-p a tie n t p riv ile ge ma y b e w a iv e d o n ly b y th e p a tie n t. F o r m a n y

p u rp o se s, a n e sta te re p re se n ta tiv e sta n ds in th e pla c e o f th e d e c e a se d a fte r d e a th

,

a n d

, a t le a st in th e fa c tu a l situ a tio n p o se d b y th is c a se

, th e e sta te re p re se n ta tiv e

m a y sp e a k fo r th e p a tie n t a fte r d e a th fo r th e p u rp o se o f a sse rtin g th e rig h t to

p sy c hia tric tre a tm e n t th a t m e e ts th e a pp ro p ria te sta n d a rd o f c a re

. It fo llo ws th a t

th e e ffe c tiv e a sse rtio n o f th is rig h t m a y re q uire th e wa iv e r o f th e priv ile g e

, ju st

a s th e p a tie n t wo u ld b e re q u ire d to wa i v e t h e priv ile g e in o rd e r to a sse rt th is

rig h t in life

.

I d o n o t b e lie v e th a t th e re c o g n itio n o f a rig h t o f th e e sta te re p re se n ta tiv e

to sta n d in th e sh o e s of th e d e c e a se d fo r p u rp o se s o f w a iv in g th e p sy c h ia tristp a tie n t p riv ile g e c o n flic ts with Ge org ia sta tu te s g o v e rn in g th e re le a se o f m e n ta l

h e a lth re c ord s. OCGA § 3 1 -3 3-4 sta te s t h a t t h e pro v isio n s o f Ch a p te r 3 3 o f

Title 3 1 to th e th e Ge o rg ia c o d e

, a u t h o riz in g re le a se o f m e d ic a l re c o rd s to

p a tie n ts a n d o th e r a

u th o riz e d p e rso ns, sh a ll n o t a p p ly to m e n ta l he a lth re c o rd s.

Ap p lie d lite ra lly

, OCGA § 3 1 -3 3 -4 wo u ld p ro h ib it th e re le a se o f m e n ta l h e a lth

re c o rd s to th e p a tie n t, h im se lf. It se e m s o b vio u s th is is n o t th e in te n t o f th e c o d e

5se c tio n, b u t t h a t it re a so n a b ly m e a n s th e p riv ile g e a ffo rd e d to m e n ta l h e a lth

re c o rd s m a y b e wa iv e d by th e p a tie n t a n d th e re c o rd s th e re b y re le a se d to h im

.

In my o p in io n

, a t le a st u n d e r th e c irc u m sta nc e s p re se n t in th is c a s e

, th e e sta te

re p re se n ta tiv e ma y a lso wa iv e th e p riv ile g e o n b e h a lf o f th e d e c e a se d p a tie n t.

OCGA § 3 7 -3 -1 6 6 (a ) (8 .1 ) o p e ra te s on ly to e x c lu de p riv ile g e d m a tte rs fro m

th o se m e n ta l h e a lth re c o r d s t h a t m a y be re le a se d to th e le g a l re p re se n ta tiv e o f

a d e c e a se d p a tie n t’s e sta te b y a fa c ility a p p ro ve d b y th e sta te fo r o u tp a tie n t o r

re sid e n tia l m e n ta l h e a lth tre a tm e n t. Th a t sta tu te d oe s n o t a p p ly to th e re le a se o f

o th e r wise p riv ile g e d m a te ria l b y a p sy c h ia trist e n g a g e d in p riv a te p ra c tic e in

re sp o n se to th e wa iv e r o f th e p riv ile ge b y th e d e c e a se d pa t i e n t’s le g a l

re p re se n ta tiv e

.

In Distric t Atto rn e

y fo r th e No rfo lk Distric t v

. Ma g ra w

, 4 17 M a ss. 1 6 9 (2 )

(6 2 8 NE2 d 24 ) (1 9 9 4), th e S u p re m e Co u rt o f Ma ssa c h u se tts h e ld th a t a d e c e a se d

p a tie n t’s e sta te re p re se nta tiv e m a y wa iv e th e psy c h o th e ra p ist-p a tie n t p riv ile g e

.

Th e c ou rt n o te d th a t wh ile th e Ma s s a ch u s e tts sta tu te c re a tin g th e p riv ile g e

su rv iv e s th e d e a th o f th e b e n e fic ia ry , th e p a tie n t, it do e s n ot a d d re ss wa iv e r o f

th e p riv ile g e b y th e re pre se n ta tiv e o f th e d e c e a se d p a tie n t’s e sta te

. Id

. a t 1 7 3

.

It fu rth er n o t e d th e ra tio na le b e h in d th e priv ile g e

, wh ic h is th a t “ th e m o st

6e ffe c tiv e a ssista n c e o f a th e ra p ist

. . . c a n b e a c h ie v e d o n ly th ro u g h o p e n

c o m m u nic a tio n

, w h i c h is lik e ly n ot to o c c u r a bse n t a g u a ra n te e th a t wh a t th e

p a tie n t

. . . sa y s will n o t b e d isc lo se d to o th e rs with o u t h e r c o n se nt.” Id

. Th e

c o u rt c o ntin ue d :

We a c k n owle d g e we a re n o t fre e to w a te r do wn th e le g isla tiv e

p o lic y e m b o d ie d in th e sta tu te

. Ho we v e r, a ru le a llo w in g wa iv e r o f

th e priv ile g e b y th e re p re se n ta tiv e o f a d e c e a se d p a t i e n t ’ s e sta te

w o u l d n o t distu rb th e le g isla tiv e p o lic y

. Th e sta tu to ry p riv ile g e

g iv e s th e p a tie nt th e o p tio n o f in v o c a tio n o r w ai v e r. Wh e n th e

p a tie n t is in c o m

p e te n t, th e sta tu te pro v id e s th a t a g u a rd ia n b e

a p p o in te d to d e te r mi n e w h e th e r to in v o k e th e p riv ile ge ; th u s a

re p re se n ta tiv e d e te rm in e s wh e th e r it is in th e p a tie n t’s b e st in te re st

to in v o k e o r to wa iv e

. Th e re is n o re a so n to a llo w wa iv e r of th e

p riv ile g e –e ith e r b y th e p a tie nt o r h e r g u a rd ia n

– d u rin g th e p a tie n t’s

life

, wh ile d isa llo win g it a fte r h e r d e a th ; w a iv e r o f th e p riv ile g e m a y

b e in th e p a tie n t’s e sta te ’s b e st in te re st wh e n th e p a tie n t is d e c e a se d

, ju st a s it m a y b e in he r o wn b e st in te re st wh ile sh e is liv in g

.

(Cita tio n a n d p u n c tu a tio n om itte d .) Id

. a t 1 7 3 -1 7 4. Th e Ge o rg ia p riv ile g e

sta tu te d o e s n o t sim ila rly p ro v id e fo r th e a p po in tm e n t o f a g u a rd ia n to a c t o n

b e h a lf o f a n in c o m

p e te n t pa tie n t to d e te rm in e w h e th e r to in v o k e o r wa iv e th e

p sy c hia trist-p a tie n t p riv ile g e . Ne v e rth e le ss, I b e lie v e th e a n a ly sis th a t th e re is

n o re a so n to a llo w th e p a tie n t to wa iv e th e p riv i l e g e in life

, wh ile d isa llo win g

th e e sta te re p re se n ta tiv e to wa iv e it a fte r th e p a tie nt’s de a th

, is a so un d o n e th a t

sh o u ld b e a

pp lie d to th e fa c ts o f th is c a se

.

7I n o te a d d itio n a lly th a t th e p sy c h ia trist-p a tie n t p riv ile g e “ g e n e ra lly

c o n fo rm [s] in sh a

pe a n d su b sta n c e to th e a tto rn e y -c lie nt p riv ile g e .” P a u l S

.

Milic h

, Ga

. Ru le s o f Ev id e n c e

, § 2 3 :1 (2 0 1 3 ). S e e a lso OCGA § 43 -3 9 -1 6

(“ c o nfid e n tia l r e l a

t io n s a nd c om m

u n ic a tio n s b e twe e n [a m e nta l h e a lth p ro v id e r]

a n d c lie n t a re p la c e d u p o n th e sa m e b a sis a s th o se p r o v i d e d b y la w b e twe e n

a tto rn e y a n d c lie n t” ). Bo th priv ile ge s a re n o w c o d ifie d in th e Ge org ia Ev id e n c e

Co d e

, O CGA § 24 -5 -5 0 1 (a ) (2 ), (5 ), a n d b oth su rv iv e th e d e a th o f th e c lie n t.

S e e S ims v

. S ta te

, 2 5 1 Ga

. 8 7 7 (5 ) (3 1 1 S E2 d 1 6 1 ) (1 9 8 4) (p sy c h ia trist-p a tie n t

p r i v i l e g e ); S

p e n c e v

. Ha mm

, 2 2 6 Ga

. Ap p

. 3 5 7 (1 ) (4 8 7 S E2 d 9 ) (1 9 9 7 )

(a tto rn e y -c lie n t p riv ile ge ). On its fa c e

, ou r Co d e p ro v id e s fo r n o e x c e p tio n s to

e i t h e r p r i v i l eg e

. OCGA § 2 4 -5 -5 01 (a ) (2 ), (5 ) Ho we v e r, in th e c a se o f th e

a tto rn e y -c lie n t p riv ile g e

, Ge o rg ia c o urts ha v e n o n e th e le ss b e e n willin g to

a b ro ga te th e p riv ile g e in c irc u m sta n c e s wh e re a d h e rin g to it wo u ld d isse rv e th e

in te re sts o f

ju stic e

. S e e

, e .g

., Y

a rb ro u g h v

. Y

a rb ro u g h

, 20 2 Ga

. 3 9 1

, 4 0 3 (7 ) (4 3

S E2 d 32 9 ) (1 9 4 7 ) (a

p p ly in g “ te sta m e n ta ry e x c ep t i o n ” to a tto rn e y -c lie n t

p riv ile g e to sa n c tio n d isc lo su re o f a tto rn e y ’s c om m u n ic a tio n s with c lie n t

re g a rd in g e x e c ut i o n of will “ to th e e n d th a t fu ll a n d c om p le te ju stic e m a y b e

d o n e ” ); Bo th v

. Fra n tz

, 2 7 8 Ga

. Ap p

. 5 5 6 (5 ) (6 2 9 SE2 d 4 2 7) (2 0 0 6) (a p p ly in g

8“ c rim e /fra u d e xc e p tio n ” to a tto rn e y -c lie n t p riv ile g e to a llo w a tto rn e y te stim o n y

re g a rd in g c o m m

u n ic a tio n s in fu rth e ra n c e o f c rim in a l o r fra u d u le nt a c tiv itie s);

Pe te rso n v

. Ba u mwe ll

, 2 0 2 Ga

. Ap p

. 2 83 (2 ) (4 14 S E 2 d 2 7 8 ) (1 9 9 1 ) (a p p ly in g

“ jo in t a tto rn e y e x c e p tio n ” t o p e rm it disc lo su re s wh e re a tto rn e y h a d jo in tly

re p re se n te d c lie nts wh o se in te re sts su b se q u e n tly b e c a m e a d v e rse ); se e a lso

S c h a ffe r v

. Fo x

, 3 0 3 Ga

. Ap p

. 5 8 4 (2 ) (6 93 S E2 d 8 2 ) (2 0 1 0 ) ( p e rm ittin g

in tro d u c tio n in to e v id e n c e o f c o m m un ic a t i o n s b e twe e n a de c e a se d c lie n t a n d h e r

a tto rn e y

, n o tin g th a t a tto rn e y -c lie n t p riv ile g e c an n o t b e in v ok e d fo r th e b e n e fit

o f “ stra n g e rs to th e a tto rn e y -c lie n t re la tio nsh ip ” ). Ju st a s o u r c o u rts h a v e b e e n

willin g to r e c o g n i z e lim ite d e x c e p tio n s to th e a tto rn e y -c lie n t priv ile g e

, we

sh o u ld a lso be wil l i n g t o fo re g o a rig id a p p lic a tio n o f th e p sy c h ia trist-p a tie n t

p riv ile g e in lim ite d c irc u m sta n c e s, wh e re th e a p p lic a t i o n o f th a t p riv ile g e

o p e ra te s o n ly a s a n im

pe d im e n t to th e p ursu it o f ju stic e o n be h a lf o f th e v e ry

in d iv id u a l it wa s in te n d e d to p ro te c t.

Ou r a p p e lla te c o u rts h a v e n e ve r a d d re sse d th e issu e o f wh e th e r th e

re p re se n ta tiv e s o f a d e c e a se d c lie n t’s e sta te m a y w a iv e th e d e c e a se d ’s a tto rn e y

c lie n t priv ile g e to o b ta in d o c u m e n ts fro m a n a t t o r n e y fo r u se in a le g a l

ma l p r a c t ic e a c tio n a ga in st th a t a tto rn e y

. Ho we v e r, a t le a st o n e of o u r sist e r

9ju risd ic tio n s h a s re c o g n iz e d th e rig h t o f th e d e c e a se d c lie n t’s re p re se n ta tiv e to

wa iv e th e p riv ile g e in th o se c irc u m sta n c e s. S e e Ma y o rg a v

. Ta te

, 75 2 NYS 2 d

3 5 3 (N.Y. Ap p

. Div

. 2 0 02 ) (d a u g h te r of d e c e a se d

, to wh o m e s t a t e ’ s e x e c u to r

h a d a ssig n e d de c e a se d’s c a use o f a c tio n fo r le g a l m a lp ra c tic e

, h a d a u th o rity to

wa iv e d e c e a se d ’s a tto rn e y -c lie n t p riv ile g e to o b ta in p ro du c tio n o f d o c u m e n ts

re le v a n t to le g a l m a lp ra c tic e a c tio n ). If ou r a p p e lla te c o u rts w o u ld b e in c lin e d

to fo llo w th e N e w Yo rk a p p e l l a te c o u rt’s le a d in th e a tto rn e y -c lie n t

p r i v i le g e /le g a l m a lp ra c tic e c o n te x t

– wh ic h I b e lie v e we wo u ld b e – th e n b y

a n a lo g y we sh ou ld b e in c lin e d to w a rd s th e sa me r e s u lt in th e p sy c h ia tristp a tie n t/m e d ic a l m a lp ra c tic e c o n te x t.

In sh o rt,

it m a k e s n o se n se to p ro h ib it a n [e sta te re p re se n ta tiv e ] fro m wa iv in g

th e

. . . p riv ile ge o f h is o r he r d e c e d e nt, wh e re s u c h p ro h ib itio n

o p e ra te s to th e d e trim e nt of th e d e c e d e n t’s e sta te

, a n d to th e b e n e fit

o f a n a lle ge d to rtfe a so r a g a in st wh om th e e sta te p o sse sse s a c a u se

o f a c tio n

.

Ma y o rg a v

. Ta te

, 7 5 2 NYS 2d a t 3 5 9

. Th u s, I fin d n o o ffe n se to th e p sy c h ia tristp a tie n t p riv ile g e in a llo win g th e re p re se nta tiv e s o f a d e c e a se d p a tie n t’s e sta te to

wa iv e th e p riv ile g e fo r th e lim ite d p u rp ose o f pu rsu in g a p o te n tia l m e d ic a l

m a lp ra c tic e c la im a g a in st th e v e ry p sy c h ia trist wh o se e k s to a sse rt th a t p riv ile g e

10to h is o wn a d v a nta g e

.

Th is C o u rt h a s a lre a d y a c k n o wle d g e d th a t th e sta t u to ry p sy c h ia tristp a tie n t p riv ile g e is n o t a b so lu te

, b u t th a t “ in a p ro p e r c a se [th e ] sta tu to ry

p riv ile g e m

u st g iv e w a y w h e re c o u n te rv a ilin g in te re sts in th e tru th -se e k in g

p ro c e ss d e m a n d su c h a re su lt.” (Em ph a sis in o rig in a l.) Bo b o v

. S ta te

, 2 5 6 Ga

.

3 5 7

, 3 60 (3 ) (3 4 9 S E2 d 69 0 ) (1 9 8 6 ) (n e v e rth e le ss h o ld in g a c rim in a l d e fe n d a n t,

wh o a sse rte d th e p riv ile g e m ust y ie ld to his c on stitu tio n a l rig h t o f c o n fro n ta tio n

,

h a d f a ile d to sh o w th e n e c e ssity fo r a d m issio n of p riv ile g e d c o m m u n ic a tio n s

b e twe e n a witn e ss a g a in st h im a nd h e r p sy c h ia trist). I b e lie v e th is is a p ro p e r

fa c tu a l situ a tio n fo r h o ld in g th a t th e sta tu to ry priv ile g e th a t m a y b e a sse rte d o r

wa iv e d b y a p a tie n t m a y a lso b e wa iv e d b y th e pa tie n t’s re pre se n ta tiv e u p o n th e

p a tie n t’s de a th

. He re

, th e e s ta te re pre se n ta tiv e of th e de c e a se d p a tie n t

e ffe c tiv e ly sta n d s in th e sh o e s o f th e p a tie nt and sh ou ld b e p e rm itte d to e x e rc ise

th e pa tie n t’s rig h t to w a iv e th e p riv ile g e g ra n t e d t o c o m m u n ic a tio n s b e twe e n

h im a n d h is p sy c h ia trist in o rd e r t o p u rsu e a p o te n tia l c la im a g a in st th e

p sy c hia trist. I re

je c t th e m a

jo rity ’s c o n c lu sio n th a t to p e rm it d isc lo su re o f su c h

c o m m u nic a tio n s to a n e sta te re p re se n ta tiv e u n d e r th e sp e c ific c irc u m sta n c e s o f

th is c a se wo u ld e v isc e ra te th e e ffe c tiv e ne ss o f th e p riv ile g e

. In ste a d , it wo u ld

11p e rm it th e e sta te re p re se n ta tiv e to pu rsu e th e p a tie n t’s in te re st in o b t a i n i n g

e ffe c tiv e a n d a

p p ro pria te tre a tm e n t. S e e S ta te v

. He re n d e e n

, su p ra

. Oth e rwise

,

b e c a u se o f th e pa tie n t’s de a th

, th e re m a y b e n o e ffe c tiv e re c o urse fo r th e fa ilu re

to p ro vid e su c h tre a tm e n t.

I a m a u th o riz e d to sta te th a t Ju stic e Hu n ste in jo in s in th is d isse n t.

12