Opinion ID: 1226781
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: application of privilege in this case

Text: I would hold that the psychotherapist-patient privilege applies to confidential communications made by a person to that person's psychotherapist during diagnosis or treatment for drug dependency even when that is the specific purpose of the diagnosis or treatment. In this case, I would hold, therefore, that the confidential communications made by mother to her psychotherapists for the specific purpose of diagnosis and treatment of her drug dependency, and the advice given to mother by her psychotherapists relevant to that mental or emotional condition, are privileged under OEC 504, unless those communications in question fall within an exception to the privilege, see OEC 504(4)(b), [22] or the privilege has been waived. [23] Here, the state contends that the communications in question fall within the so-called patient-litigant exception, OEC 504(4)(b)(A), [24] and, therefore, are not privileged. Additionally, the state asserts that mother waived any psychotherapist-patient privilege she may have had. Frances Howard was the first witness to testify in the hearing on termination of parental rights. [25] Howard, who has a master's degree in counseling and guidance, was a counselor and an assistant chaplain in the Prison Ministry for Women program at the correctional facility where mother had resided. On direct examination, Howard testified that mother had asked her for advice concerning an environment where she [mother] could go that    would help her with her problem with drugs. Howard further testified on direct examination that she had recommended a particular drug program to mother and that mother expressed an interest in participating in that program. On cross-examination, after Howard appeared reluctant to testify and stated, I guess I don't know right here where confidentiality starts and ends[,] mother's lawyer interjected: Could we have a moment, your Honor? I am going to consult with my client about this. I just want to let the witness know, your Honor, that [mother] is not retaining any confidentiality basis and that Ms. Howard is free to testify as to what her recollections are. So I'm a little bit concerned that the witness might be concerned about breaching confidentiality of [mother's] confidences to her. And [mother] just informed me that she is not claiming any privilege in regard to this witness. Howard testified, without objection, that mother had indicated her drug of choice, but could not remember what that drug was. Howard also disclosed other communications that mother had made to her, which were relevant to mother's mental or emotional condition of drug dependency. [26] OEC 511 provides: A person upon whom [OEC 504] confer[s] a [psychotherapist-patient] privilege against disclosure of the confidential matter or communication waives the privilege if the person    voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant part of the matter or communication [unless]    the disclosure is itself a privileged communication.    Voluntary disclosure does occur, as to psychotherapists in the case of a mental or emotional condition    upon the holder's offering of any person as a witness who testifies as to the condition. Mother offered the testimony of her counselor, Howard, and even consented to disclosure [27] of any confidential communications made by mother to Howard relevant to mother's mental or emotional condition of drug dependency. Under OEC 511, offering of any person as a witness who testifies as to the [mother's mental or emotional condition of drug dependency waives the privilege as to all communications relevant to that condition, even though such communications were made at other times and to other psychotherapists. [28] Once confidentiality is destroyed by waiver, no subsequent claim of privilege can restore it. [29] Mother, therefore, waived the psychotherapist-patient privilege that she had concerning her mental or emotional condition of drug dependency. Accordingly, it is not necessary that I address the merits of the state's assertion of the patient-litigant exception. [30] In sum, I would hold that the confidential communications made by mother to her psychotherapists even for the specific purpose of diagnosis and treatment of her drug dependency, and the advice given to mother by her psychotherapists relevant to that mental or emotional condition, are privileged under OEC 504, but that in this case the privilege was waived. Therefore, I would reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this dissenting opinion. VAN HOOMISSEN and FADELEY, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.