Court Opinion

ID: 9671891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:44:32.079328+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:12.821471
License: Public Domain

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.
¶ 150. {dissenting). This case rests upon the holding in Sawyer v. Midelfort, 227 Wis. 2d 124, 595 N.W.2d 423 (1999). There, this court determined that plaintiffs could maintain a third-party negligence claim against a therapist whose treatment allegedly resulted in implanting and reinforcing *447false memories of child sexual abuse. Id. at 129. However, the holding of Sawyer was limited.
¶ 151. The concurring opinion in Sawyer wrote separately to "reiterate the narrow scope of the majority's decision based on the unique facts of [the] case." Id. at 162 (Wilcox, J. concurring). It sounded a caution that the majority opinion, if expanded, would "place an unreasonable burden on therapists' treatment choices" and undermine the confidentiality that is essential to the patient-therapist relationship. Id. The concurrence forewarned of a future day when "[other suits] will soon follow" and of the risks attendant to any future expansion of the majority's limited holding. Id. Regrettably, with this case, that day has now arrived.
¶ 152. While I am in concert with the lead opinion in many respects, I cannot agree with its attempted significant expansion of the Sawyer court's limited holding. Rather, I embrace the sentiments expressed in the Sawyer concurring opinion. The rationale proffered by the lead opinion in carving out an exception to the patient-therapist privilege and right of confidentiality, and in engrafting criminal procedure to implement the exception, is supported neither by public policy nor precedent.
I — I
¶ 153. The lead opinion, after heralding the substantive right to confidentiality of health care records set forth in Wis. Stat. § 146.82 and the importance of the Wis. Stat. § 905.04 patient-therapist evidentiary privilege, ultimately diminishes both. It concludes that in certain circumstances "public policy requires that the therapist-patient confidentiality and privilege give way to Sawyer third-party negligence claims . . . ." Lead op., *448¶ 58. It therefore carves out an exception to the privilege and right and establishes a procedure to advance that exception.
¶ 154. If the lead opinion's holding was truly-limited to the third-party negligence claim set forth in Sawyer, I would probably swallow hard, and obligingly yield to the doctrine of stare decisis. The lead opinion's holding, however, attempts to extend well beyond Sawyer in four significant ways.
¶ 155. First, the lead opinion extends the Sawyer holding to cases where the substantive right to confidential therapy records is being asserted.
¶ 156. In Sawyer, the substantive right to confidentiality of health care records was not in issue. The patient-daughter was deceased, and the Sawyers brought a claim on behalf of the estate. As administrators of their daughter's estate, they already had custody of her therapy records. Here, relying on her substantive right to confidentiality in her therapy records pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 146.82, Charlotte vigorously fought for nondisclosure of the record to her parents.
¶ 157. Second, the lead opinion extends the Sawyer holding to cases where the patient-therapist privilege is being asserted.
¶ 158. In Sawyer, because the parents brought a claim on behalf of the deceased daughter's estate, they put their daughter's medical condition at issue under Wis. Stat. §§ 804.10 and 905.04(4)(c). As holders of their deceased daughter's patient-therapist privilege, they waived the privilege. Here, Charlotte has fought hard, as holder of the privilege, to assert that privilege.
¶ 159. Third, the lead opinion extends Sawyer to general modalities of therapeutic treatment, not just recovered memory therapy.
*449¶ 160. The holding of the Sawyer case was explicitly limited to situations involving recovered memory therapy. Here, the lead opinion acknowledges that it is unclear that the therapy involved was recovered memory therapy. It notes that "a key factual dispute is whether Charlotte underwent recovered memory therapy." Lead op., ¶ 31. Thus, the lead opinion's holding and analysis is extended to allegations of all forms of negligent therapy.
¶ 161. Fourth, the lead opinion enlarges the Sawyer holding to other kinds of abuse.
¶ 162. The Sawyer court limited its holding to cases involving sexual abuse. The lead opinion expands the scope of cases to also include cases of physical abuse. See lead op., ¶¶ 2, 4.
¶ 163. I agree with Judgé (now Justice) Roggen-sack, who authored the court of appeals decision in this case. The court of appeals rejected this expansion of Sawyer advanced by the plaintiffs (and now embraced by the lead opinion). Instead it supported the public policy underlying the privilege, that of protecting the free exchange of information between the patient and the therapist. The court of appeals determined that keeping the communication privileged enhances the therapist's ability to provide the needed treatment to the patient. It explained:
[T]he public policy underlying the privilege, that of encouraging patients to freely and candidly discuss their health care concerns with their health care providers so they may be adequately treated, would be thwarted if patients' health care records were fair game whenever any third-party initiated a lawsuit to which those records might be relevant. Additionally, the legislature has clearly mandated the protection of confí-*450dential psychologist-patient communications and of patient health care records in Wis. Stat. §§ 905.04 and 146.82(1).
Johnson v. Rogers Memorial Hosp., Inc., 2000 WI App 166, ¶ 17, 238 Wis. 2d 227, 616 N.W.2d 903 (Johnson I).
¶ 164. Like the court of appeals, I conclude that a patient's records cannot be "fair game" whenever a suit of this kind is commenced. Such a result would thwart the public policy underlying the patient-therapist evi-dentiary privilege and undermine the legislative mandate protecting confidential therapy records set forth in Wis. Stat. § 146.82(1).
¶ 165. The lead opinion maintains that the Johnsons' claim for financial compensation may prevail over privileged communications and the right to confidential records. In carving out an exception to the privilege and right, the opinion articulates the rationale that impels it to this conclusion.
¶ 166. It cautions that if negligent therapy "is left to flourish within the confines of the therapist-patient relationship, the privilege no longer serves its purpose." Lead op., ¶ 62. The lead opinion observes, "we remain quite confident that negligent treatment which encourages false accusations of sexual abuse is highly culpable for the resulting injury. That culpability also weighs in favor of recognizing a public policy exception to the therapist-patient privilege in this case." Id., ¶ 65 (citations and internal quotation omitted).
¶ 167. Having decided that an exception is desirable, the lead opinion offers as support Schuster v. Altenberg, 144 Wis. 2d 223, 424 N.W.2d 159 (1988), *451which concluded that exceptions to a general rule of privilege can be waived in the interest of public policy. Lead op., ¶ 70. It then proceeds to craft a public policy exception and a procedure, modeled after a similar criminal law exception refined in State v. Green, 2002 WI 68, 253 Wis. 2d 356, 646 N.W.2d 298. Lead op., ¶ 72.
¶ 168. Under the lead opinion's attempted new standard, a plaintiff must "first commence a reasonable investigation into the type of therapy the plaintiffs child underwent." Id., ¶ 74. Afterward, "the plaintiff must set forth a good faith fact-specific basis demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that the records contain information regarding negligent treatment." Id. If the plaintiff meets this burden, the court "must proceed to conduct an in camera review regardless of the victim's lack of consent." Id., ¶ 75.
¶ 169. Although well-intentioned, the lead opinion's analysis ultimately proves unconvincing. Its reliance on Schuster, as authority for the exception, is misplaced. Schuster was a different sort of case altogether.
¶ 170. Edith Schuster, a patient of psychiatrist Dr. Altenberg, was in an automobile accident. She was injured and her passenger, daughter Gwendolyn, was paralyzed. Edith's husband Robert filed suit against Dr. Altenberg, alleging that Edith's psychological condition was responsible for the accident and that Dr. Altenberg was negligent for failing to warn the family of Edith's condition. The court ultimately imposed liability on Dr. Altenberg, holding that "even under the broader ethical duty of confidentiality, this duty finds exception where disclosure is necessary to protect the patient or the community from imminent danger." Schuster, 144 Wis. 2d at 252 (citation and internal quotation omitted).
*452¶ 171. The reasoning of Schuster stemmed from the seminal duty-to-warn case, Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976). In that case, Prosenjit Poddar, a patient of psychologist Dr. Moore, killed Tatiana Tarasoff. Tatiana's parents filed suit, alleging that Poddar stated to Dr. Moore his intentions to kill Tatiana and that Dr. Moore was negligent for fading to warn them of their daughter's perd. The court imposed liabdity on Dr. Moore, holding that "[w]hen a therapist determines... that his patient presents a serious danger of violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger." Tarasoff, 551 P2d at 340.
¶ 172. The public safety concerns in Schuster and Tarasoff are simply not present here. There is no allegation that Charlotte poses a danger to her parents or to the public at large. The only "danger" alleged is damage to the Johnsons' reputation. The Johnsons' claim cannot be seen as on equal footing with the claims put forward by the Schusters or the Tarasoffs.
¶ 173. The standard articulated by the lead opinion today marks a grave departure from traditional privilege standards, as well as from criminal law. The lead opinion models its standard after Green, which "refined and heightened the standard to be applied when criminal defendants seek an in camera review of the victim's therapy records." Lead op., ¶ 72. Under Green, a defendant must investigate the victim's treatment and make a good faith showing that the records sought are likely to contain relevant information. 253 Wis. 2d 356, ¶¶ 32-33. Once these burdens are met, the court will conduct an in camera review of the records and disclose them to the defendant only if the victim consents. State v. Solberg, 211 Wis. 2d 372, 386-87, 564 N.W.2d 775 (1997).
*453¶ 174. The standard set forth in the lead opinion mirrors Green, with the exception of the requirement of consent. "[T]he circuit court must proceed to conduct an in camera review regardless of the victim's lack of consent." Lead op. ¶ 75. The lead opinion reasons that the special circumstances of this case mandate this result, asserting that "requiring] Charlotte to give consent to open her medical records makes little sense considering that as a result of the negligent therapy Charlotte understandably wants nothing to do with her parents." Id.
¶ 175. This argument fails. No matter how "peculiar" this case may be, Charlotte alone possesses waiver rights. The court recognized this in Solberg, requiring a victim's consent before a criminal defendant could access records. Thus, this court found that the interests in preserving privilege outweighed the interests a criminal defendant had in accessing the records. This is significant considering that a criminal defendant faces the ultimate sanction: loss of liberty. Blanton v. North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538, 542 (1989) (loss of liberty is a more severe form of punishment than any monetary sanction); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 366 (1970) (requiring due process safeguards where loss of liberty is at stake). And yet the court today affords the privilege less protection, though the risk to the Johnsons is far less severe than the risk faced by any criminal defendant.
I — I HH I — I
¶ 176. The lead opinion may have an admirable goal, but its resolution is not a satisfactory means to that end. As Justice Wilcox cautioned in his Sawyer concurrence, this result jeopardizes patient-therapist relationships:
*454This result would, we believe, place therapists in a difficult position, requiring them to answer to competing demands and to divide their loyalty between sharply different interests.... [T]herapists would feel compelled to consider the possible effects of treatment choices on third parties and would have an incentive to compromise their treatment because of the threatened liability.
227 Wis. 2d 124, 162 (quoting Doe v. McKay, 700 N.E.2d 1018, 1023-24 (Ill. 1998)).
¶ 177. In the end, this is a difficult case and the position the Johnsons find themselves in is not a comfortable one. But this court's sympathy for the plaintiffs should not force our hand.
¶ 178. Ultimately, I agree with the court of appeals' determination that "we have been presented with no argument that causes us to conclude that the Johnsons' interest in financial compensation for the injury they claim to have suffered should trump Charlotte's right to maintain the confidentiality of her privileged communications and health care records." Johnson I, 238 Wis. 2d 227, ¶ 18. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.1
¶ 179. I am authorized to state that Chief Justice SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON joins this dissent.