Opinion ID: 1779062
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Physician and Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege

Text: ś 107. The Diocese claims some of the requested documents are protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege provided by Rule 503 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence. ś 108. In certain cases of alleged sexual molestation of children, the Diocese referred the accused priest and the victim to doctors and therapists for treatment and counseling. The Diocese paid for the treatment and counseling, and received reports from the treating doctors and therapists. The priests and victims waived the privilege to the extent that the treating physicians and therapists could send updates and treatment summaries to the diocese. ś 109. The priests and victims clearly qualify as patient[s] under Miss. R. Evid. 503(a)(1). The treating doctors and therapists clearly qualify as physician[s] and psychotherapist[s] under Miss. R. Evid. 503(a)(2) and (3), respectively. This brings us to the question of whether the information requested qualifies as  confidential . Rule 503(4) provides: A communication is  confidential  if not intended to be disclosed to third persons, except persons present to further the interest of the patient in the consultation, examination, or interview, persons reasonably necessary for the transmission of the communication, or persons who are participating in the diagnosis and treatment under the direction of the physician or psychotherapist, including members of the patient's family. ś 110. The patients agreed that the otherwise privileged information could be provided to the Diocese. Thus, the communication was intended by the patients to be disclosed to third persons, seemingly removing it from the definition of confidential. However, we have never held that a limited waiver of the privilege which allowed specific information to be provided to specified persons or entities, serves to waive the privilege generally, or as to other third persons not included in the waiver. Were we to so hold, the privilege would be, for all practical purposes, emasculated. For instance, patients customarily waive the privilege to the extent their insurance companies require privileged information for the payment of claims. Such limited waivers, however, have never served to waive the privilege generally, for those insured patients. A general waiver of the privilege occurs where the patient clearly intends it generally waived, or where the waiver is such that the patient can no longer reasonably expect the communication to remain confidential. ś 111. While it is true that the priests and victims waived the privilege, allowing disclosure of the information to the Diocese, we find no evidence or indication that the waivers were intended to be general. Under the circumstances, we cannot say that, because the information was disclosed to the Diocese, the patients no longer expected the communications to remain confidential. Therefore, we hold that documents in the possession of the Diocese which qualify under Rule 503(b) [21] remain privileged, and may not be produced to the Morrisons, absent a waiver pursuant to Rule 503(c), which provides in pertinent part: The privilege may be claimed by the patient, his guardian or conservator, or the personal representative of a deceased patient. All documents the Diocese intend to be withheld from production based upon the privilege should be included in the privilege log discussed infra.