Opinion ID: 2636671
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: In Camera Review of Education Records and Medical Records

Text: Wittrein argues that the court of appeals incorrectly affirmed the trial court's decision to quash his subpoena duces tecum in which he sought discovery of K.H.'s mental health records and education records. Wittrein argues that these records should have been reviewed in camera by the trial court. Because the mental health records and education records involve different considerations, we will address them separately.
Wittrein argues on appeal that the trial court incorrectly determined K.H.'s records from Aurora Mental Health (AMH) were protected by the psychologist-patient privilege, and that the court of appeals applied the wrong legal standard when it conducted its own in camera review of the records. We hold that the psychologist-patient privilege was not waived as to the AMH records, and that the court of appeals' in camera review was unnecessary because the records were privileged. Therefore, the standard it used to review the records is irrelevant. The psychologist-patient privilege assures a victim of a sexual assault that all records of any treatment will remain confidential unless otherwise directed by the victim. People v. Sisneros, 55 P.3d 797, 800 (Colo.2002) (quoting People v. Dist. Ct., 719 P.2d 722, 726-27 (Colo.1986)). The privilege protects testimonial disclosures as well as pretrial discovery of files or records derived or created in the course of the treatment. Id. These records, however, are subject to waiver of the privilege. An evidentiary showing of waiver is required before the trial court may order the documents produced for an in camera review. Id. As we stated in Sisneros, [t]o determine whether there was a waiver, the proper inquiry is not whether the information sought may be relevant.... Instead, the proper inquiry is whether the victim has injected her physical or mental condition into the case as the basis of a claim or an affirmative defense. 55 P.3d at 801. To establish a waiver, the defendant must show that the privilege holder, by words or conduct has expressly or impliedly forsaken his claim of confidentiality with respect to the information in question. Clark v. Dist. Ct., 668 P.2d 3, 8 (Colo.1983). When K.H. alleged that Wittrein had sexually abused her, she was taken to Children's Hospital in Denver for physical and mental examination. Children's Hospital provided in-patient therapy and diagnosed K.H. with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). K.H. was later admitted to AMH for ongoing mental therapy. At trial, Wittrein filed a subpoena duces tecum to obtain discovery of mental health records relating to K.H.'s out-patient treatment at AMH. Wittrein argued that the prosecution had put K.H.'s mental state at issue when it stated its intention to introduce a diagnosis of PTSD from Children's Hospital and therefore waived any privilege to the AMH records as well. Wittrein further argued that, even if the AMH records were privileged, the trial court should have conducted an in camera review for potentially exculpatory evidence. The People conceded that K.H. had waived her privilege with regard to the Children's Hospital records but argued that the records held by AMH relating to K.H.'s ongoing therapy were distinct, requiring a separate waiver. After a hearing, the trial court determined that K.H. waived her privilege with respect to the records from Children's Hospital but not to the records from AMH. [4] Thus the trial court held that the privilege prevented it from reviewing, in camera or otherwise, K.H.'s AMH records. The court of appeals upheld the trial court's decision to quash the subpoena but based its decision on its own in camera review instead of the psychologist-patient privilege. [5] Wittrein, 198 P.3d at 1241. The court of appeals determined that nothing in the mental health records would have changed the outcome of the defendant's trial. Id. Wittrein now argues that the court of appeals applied the wrong standard when reviewing the records. We agree with the trial court and hold that K.H. did not waive the psychologist-patient privilege, either expressly or impliedly, as to the records from AMH. The trial court correctly drew a line between K.H.'s records from Children's Hospital and her records from AMH, holding that the two sets of records were distinct and required separate waivers to be admissible. K.H. expressly waived her privilege to the Children's Hospital records relating to her treatment and PTSD diagnosis. [6] There was no such waiver, however, for the AMH records because K.H. never placed the substance of her ongoing AMH treatment sessions at issue. Therefore, the psychologist-patient privilege precluded the trial court from conducting an in camera review of K.H.'s AMH records. To hold otherwise would undermine the necessary trust involved in a psychologist-patient relationship. See Sisneros, 55 P.3d at 802 (The possibility that documents relating to treatment may later be obtained in discovery decreases the likelihood that a victim will seek treatment, let alone be willing to reveal intimate details during treatment.); see also People v. Bachofer, 192 P.3d 454, 461 (Colo. App.2008) (holding that a privilege to medical records was not waived; therefore the records were not discoverable); Clark, 668 P.2d at 9 (holding that the privilege holder did not place his mental condition at issue because he did not assert his mental problems as the basis for a claim or defense). Because we hold that K.H. did not waive her psychologist-patient privilege, we decline to determine whether the court of appeals reviewed K.H.'s mental health records under the correct standard. [7] The trial court correctly determined that the psychologist-patient privilege forecloses an in camera review of K.H.'s mental health records. Even if the court of appeals used an incorrect legal standard during its in camera review, such error is irrelevant because the records should not have been subject to review.
Because Wittrein believed that declining school performance, and not abuse, may have caused K.H.'s PTSD, he sought an in camera review of K.H.'s education records. In addition, Wittrein believed that the education records might actually contradict the finding of PTSD if the dates of K.H.'s decline in school performance did not correlate with the dates of her alleged abuse. The trial court held that if the People introduced any evidence as to K.H.'s school performance, the door would be open and the education records would be disclosed. However, the trial court ultimately refused discovery of the education records, and it also declined to review them in camera because it determined, incorrectly, that federal law prohibited their disclosure. The court of appeals disagreed with the trial court's analysis, holding that the federal law contained exceptions to Colorado's statutory prohibition on the release of school records without written parental consent. The court of appeals then held that a trial court should weigh the confidentiality interests of the child and parents against the defendant's need for the requested information. Wittrein, 198 P.3d at 1240. However, the court of appeals concluded that Wittrein had not sufficiently established a need for the information; therefore the trial court's error was harmless. Id. We agree with the court of appeals that a balancing test is appropriate but we do not rest our determination on Wittrein's insufficient proffer. Discovery of K.H.'s school records involves the interplay of state and federal law. Under section 22-1-123(3), C.R.S. (2009), [a] school district shall not release the education records of a student to any person, agency, or organization without the prior written consent of the parent or legal guardian of the student except as otherwise permitted in [the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)]. Under FERPA, an exception to the parental consent requirement exists for release of records in compliance with judicial order, or pursuant to any lawfully issued subpoena if the students or parents have been notified. 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(2)(B) (2006). Thus, the federal statute does not altogether prohibit disclosure of education records but instead requires parental notification and a judicial order or subpoena. Prior to the issuance of a judicial order or subpoena, the defendant must articulate, in good faith, a specific need for the information contained in the records. See Bachofer, 192 P.3d at 461. The trial court must then balance the defendant's need for the information with the privacy interests of the student and her parents. Id. A non-exclusive list of factors the court should consider includes: (1) the nature of the information sought, (2) the relationship between this information and the issue in dispute, and (3) the harm that may result from disclosure. Id. (citing Zaal v. State, 326 Md. 54, 602 A.2d 1247, 1261-62 (1992)). If the trial court determines that the defendant's need outweighs any privacy interests, then it should review the records in camera. The trial court, in its discretion, may then order disclosure of the records. Id. (holding that a defendant may obtain school records upon a proper showing of need and that the trial court's decision will be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard). Here, Wittrein made no proffer of need directly related to the education records. [8] However, even though the proffer was deficient, we cannot ignore the constitutional issue implicated in the nondisclosure of K.H.'s education records. Under Brady v. Maryland, the prosecution must disclose any information that is materially favorable to the defendant. 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). The court should also disclose inculpatory information that will be of material assistance in preparing the defense. Bachofer, 192 P.3d at 461. We do not believe that, under the circumstances of this case, Brady or its progeny required K.H.'s education records to be reviewed for exculpatory information. K.H.'s education records related only tangentially to her diagnosis and treatment for sexual abuse, and academic performance is only one among many factors that are considered in a PTSD diagnosis. Moreover, the prosecution never relied on the education records at trial. Had the prosecution relied on them, the trial court's pre-trial ruling would have required disclosure or, at the very least, an in camera review. Based on the facts of this case and the relationship of the education records to the evidence, we hold that it was not reversible error for the trial court to decline an in camera review of these records.