Court Opinion

ID: 9620304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:40:45.557976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:49.290955
License: Public Domain

Carley, Justice,
dissenting.
The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain the legislative intent. Had the General Assembly of Georgia intended to extend the privilege against disclosure to communications between a patient and “a person authorized to practice medicine who devotes a substantial portion of his or her time in the diagnosis or treatment of a mental or emotional condition, including alcohol or drug addiction,” *601then presumably it would have enacted a statute which so provides. However, our General Assembly, unlike the legislatures of several other, states, has not done so. Instead, it has enacted a statute which extends a privilege against disclosure only to communications between a patient and a “psychiatrist.” OCGA § 24-9-21 (5). In my opinion, appellee-defendant Dr. Wiles is not a “psychiatrist.” Accordingly, I respectfully dissent to the majority’s affirmance of the trial court’s denial of appellant-plaintiff Mr. Wiles’ motion to compel and grant of appellee’s motion to quash the subpoena.
The majority concludes that appellee is a “psychiatrist” simply because she “is a licensed medical doctor who spends a substantial portion of her time treating mental and emotional conditions.” Applying the majority’s definitional rationale, appellee presumably would also be considered a “cardiologist” if, in her medical practice, she ever had occasion to spend “a substantial portion of her time” treating heart conditions. Likewise she would be considered to be a “dermatologist” if she spent “a substantial portion of her time” treating skin conditions. In my opinion, “psychiatrist,” “cardiologist” and “dermatologist,” are terms of art denoting that a licensed medical doctor not only spends “a substantial portion of his or her time in the diagnosis and treatment” of certain conditions, but is also a “specialist” in the diagnosis and treatment of certain conditions. “Specialist” is defined as “[a] practitioner who devotes himself [or herself] to á special class of diseases.” Dor land’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary (24th ed. 1965). “Psychiatry” is that branch of medicine which “deals with the science and practice of treating mental, emotional, or behavioral disorders esp. as originating in endogenous causes or resulting from faulty interpersonal relationships.” Webster’s Third International Dictionary (1969). Thus, a “psychiatrist” is “a physician specializing in psychiatry. . . .” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1969).
In the course of her practice, a licensed medical doctor can have occasion to spend “a substantial portion of her time” in any number of branches of medicine and, in her general capacity as a medical “expert,” is certainly qualified to give an opinion concerning any of those branches in which she may have done so. See Petty v. Folsom, 229 Ga. 477, 481 (2) (192 SE2d 246) (1972); Henderson v. State, 157 Ga. App. 621, 623 (4) (278 SE2d 164) (1981). However, unless she also “devotes [herself] to a special class of diseases,” she may be a medical “expert,” but she can not be considered a “specialist.” It is undisputed that appellee is a “specialist.” However, her “specialty” is internal medicine, not psychiatry. Thus, notwithstanding appellee’s general status as a medical “expert,” she is not a “psychiatrist.” As an “internist” who also spends “a substantial portion of her time” in the treatment of mental and emotional conditions, appellee’s communica*602tions with and from her patients are not privileged within the meaning of OCGA § 24-9-21 (5). By its express terms, that statutory privilege does not extend to communications between a patient and “a physician in any specialty other than psychiatry. [Cits.]” Barnes v. State, 171 Ga. App. 478, 482 (3) (320 SE2d 597) (1984).
Decided October 11, 1994 —
Reconsideration denied November 3, 1994.
Carey, Jarrará & Walker, Daniel L. Parr, Sr., for appellant.
Forrester & Brim, Weymon H. Forrester, Richard C. Bellows, for appellee.
The majority opinion is ultimately premised solely upon policy considerations that may or may not prompt the General Assembly to follow the lead of other state legislatures which have, by statute, broadened the scope of the “patient-psychiatrist” privilege. However, the authority of the courts is limited to interpreting the existing statutory law as adopted by the legislative branch of government. Our legislature has not enacted any statute establishing a general privilege for patient-physician communications and has limited the privilege to communications between a patient and a “psychiatrist.” “Psychiatrist,” without more, is a narrow term of art and must be so construed. One of the fundamental rules of statutory construction is that “words of art or words connected with a particular trade or subject matter, . . . shall have the signification attached to them by experts in such trade or with reference to such subject matter.” OCGA § 1-3-1 (b). When “psychiatrist” is properly construed as a term of art, appellee is not a “specialist” whose practice is “devoted” to “psychiatry” and communications between her and her patients would not, therefore, be deemed privileged under OCGA § 24-9-21 (5). Accordingly, I must dissent to the majority’s affirmance of what I perceive to be erroneous rulings by the trial court.
I am authorized to state that Justice Thompson joins in this dissent.