Opinion ID: 2168313
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence in the Trial Court

Text: To establish incorrigibility and delinquency the State needed to prove C.P. habitually disobeys the reasonable and lawful commands of [her] parent, guardian, or custodian and that she needs care, treatment or rehabilitation that she is not receiving, that she is unlikely to accept voluntarily and that she is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the coercive intervention of the court. Ind. Code § 31-6-4-1(a)(4), (b)(2) (West Supp. 1990). To establish these elements, the State called counselor Brown to testify. The evidence revealed that Brown has a bachelor's degree in special education and a master's degree in social work. He is a member of the Academy of Certified Social Workers. He is not, however, a certified psychologist or a psychiatrist. His diagnoses and treatment plans are subject to approval by a supervising psychiatrist with whom Brown consults on each case. C.P.'s attorney argues that Brown's testimony should have been excluded under the statutory physician-patient privilege because Brown was adjunct personnel to the psychiatrist. He asserts that the Court of Appeals' opinion conflicts with other decisions on this issue. Resolving this issue requires an examination of the breadth of the physician-patient privilege and the application of that analysis to the facts of this case.