Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantdamagesappealtestimony

damageshearingtestimony

Related Cases

Runyon v. Smith, 163 N.J. 439, 749 A.2d 852

Facts

The case arose when a former patient alleged that her psychologist disclosed confidential information during a custody dispute, violating the psychologist-patient privilege. The initial ruling favored the defendants, but upon appeal, it was determined that the psychologist's testimony and report breached the privilege. The court noted that the Family Part did not conduct the necessary in camera review to assess the appropriateness of the psychologist's disclosures.

The Family Part did not conduct the in camera review contemplated by Kinsella, 150 N.J. at 328, 696 A.2d 556, and apparently did not make the appropriate determination on the record that evidence of fitness from other sources was inadequate.

Issue

Did the psychologist breach the psychologist-patient privilege, and can she be held liable for damages as a result of that breach?

Rule

A psychologist who fails to assert the patient's privilege and discloses confidential information without a court determination may be liable for damages to the patient.

A psychologist who fails to assert her patient's privilege and discloses as a witness confidential information concerning that patient without a court determination that disclosure is required may be liable for damages to the patient.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by examining the circumstances under which the psychologist disclosed information. It found that the psychologist's testimony violated the privilege, as there was no evidence that the children were in imminent danger that would necessitate breaching confidentiality. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to established standards and procedures regarding the privilege.

We therefore conclude, as did the Appellate Division, 322 N.J.Super. at 246, 730 A.2d 881, that 'Dr. Smith's testimony at the January hearing and her subsequent report violated the psychologist-patient privilege.'

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division's ruling, concluding that the psychologist breached the privilege and could be liable for damages.

Affirmed.

Who won?

The plaintiff, the former patient, prevailed in the case because the court found that her psychologist had breached the psychologist-patient privilege.

We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons set forth in its comprehensive opinion.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Small v. Howard, 128 Mass. 131, 1880 WL 10622, 35 Am.Rep. 363

Krusac v. Covenant Medical Center, Inc., 497 Mich. 251, 865 N.W.2d 908

Lowe v. Atlas Logistics Group Retail Services (Atlanta), LLC, 102 F.Supp.3d 1360, 51 NDLR P 27

Tonsic v. Wagner, 458 Pa. 246, 329 A.2d 497

Adamski v. Tacoma General Hospital, 20 Wash.App. 98, 579 P.2d 970