Plaintiff may depose any mental health provider limited to the above areas. Rather than comply with the discovery orders, the three defendants requested that the circuit court hold them in civil contempt. On appeal, defendants contend only that the circuit court erred in holding them in contempt of court for refusing to comply with the court's previous order directing them to disclose certain mental health information regarding Steven. If the discovery order is invalid, then the contempt order for failure to comply with that discovery order must be reversed. The question of whether certain mental health information is discoverable under the Act is one of law and is subject to de novo review.
Communication includes information which indicates that a person is a recipient.
The Act clearly makes confidential any communication made during or in connection with providing mental health or developmental disabilities services to a recipient and any record kept in the course of providing such services. The Act further makes it clear that communication includes any information that indicates that a person is a recipient of mental health services. See also House v. SwedishAmerican Hospital. 206 Ill. App. The requested information includes the names of any mental health providers seen by Steven, the dates on which each provider saw him, and certain aspects of Roger and Gayle's communications with any such providers.