Court Opinion

ID: 9860410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:21:19.403163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:22:01.495966
License: Public Domain

CHIEF JUSTICE HARRISON, specially concurring: Plaintiff’s attempt to invoke a “fundamental fairness” exception to the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act (740 ILCS 110/1 et seq. (West 1998)) was properly rejected by the majority. Unlike my colleagues, however, I would not base that conclusion on factual distinctions between this case and our decision in D.C. v. S.A., 178 Ill. 2d 551 (1997). Instead, I would hold that D.C. was incorrectly decided and should be overruled. Where records and communications are privileged from disclosure under the Act, as the records and communications here were, a court has no authority to override the statutory privilege based on its own conceptions of fairness. The terms of the statute must be enforced as enacted by the General Assembly. Contrary to the position taken by the court in D.C., we may not rewrite legislation or ignore express requirements contained in this or any other statute merely because we believe that doing so might better serve the interests of justice under the particular facts before us. If the statute, as enacted, appears to operate unjustly or inappropriately in certain circumstances, that is a matter for the legislature, not this court. D.C. v. S.A., 178 Ill. 2d 551, 571 (1997) (Harrison, J., dissenting, joined by Nickels, J.).