Court Opinion

ID: 9671890
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:44:32.075008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:12.818716
License: Public Domain

JON E WILCOX, J.
¶ 148. (concurring in part, dissenting in part). I agree with Justice Bradley's well-written dissent that "[t]he 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." Justice Bradley's dissent, ¶ 152. Therefore, I do not agree with the lead opinion's decision to set up an in camera review procedure of Charlotte's records. See lead op., ¶ 71.
¶ 149. However, I wholeheartedly join Justice Prosser's concurrence insomuch as it recognizes that "in this case, numerous undisputed facts show that Charlotte waived her privilege of confidentiality by voluntarily disclosing a significant part of the privileged matter." Justice Prosser's concurrence, ¶ 81. As such, I would allow the Johnsons access to Charlotte's medical records.