Ethics and Professional Issues Flashcards
Commonwealth v. Kobrin (1985)
Medicaid fraud investigation; said grand jury could require psychiatrist to submit portions of records related to times and length of patient appt, patient diagnosis, treatment plans, somatic therapies but not records related to thoughts, feelings, impressions, or containing substance psychotherapeutic dialogue, exposing personal relationships irrelevant to investigation
Clites v. Iowas (1982)
client with ID in residential school and was given major tranquilizers which gave him TD; Court decided that doctors are held to reasonable level of care, use of major tranquilizers are appropriate and must be monitored, risk of uninterrupted use of tranquilizers should be considered, drug tx should be altered on standardized practice, consultations should be sought between doctors prior to start and stop of medication, closely consider if using multiple drugs at once to determine if necessary, physical restraints should be considered cruel or inhuman; in non-emergency situations informed consent should be obtained; in this case court said was not appropriate
Doe v. Roe (1977)
psychiatrist wrote book with verbatim patient info and about her marriage; dr. said patient consented to book but obtained during therapy and said would conceal identity patient said she did not; court said this was breach of confidentiality and that statute or common law can provide action for damages, noted dr. book did not contribute to science but also had no motive to harm so no punitive damages; her husband co-wrote book and was also liable
Jaffee v. Redmond (1996)
Police officer in therapy after job shooting and was under lawsuit; lawyer filing suit tried to get psychotherapy notes and judge allowed but treater and officer did not comply and judge told jury they could consider refusal to turn over notes as presumption that notes were unfavorable; courts said that federal courts should recognize privilege and are protected from compelled disclosure; APA amicus brief: Federal Rule of Evidence 501 authorizes federal courts recognize privilege, common law support privilege (clients have strong expectation of confidentiality, confidentiality essential to therapy, society has strong interest in fostering this and protecting privacy, benefits of privilege outweighs cost, applying privilege in case by case basis would undermine value of privilege)
In Re Lifeschutz 2 (1970)
Dr imprisoned for contempt after refusing to answer deposition questions and produce records related to former patient; plaintiff was claiming emotional distress in civil lawsuit and waived privilege and court said dr cannot assert absolute privilege; ruled that this was consistent way for court to a ct, “the litigant-patient exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege does not unconstitutionally infringe the constitutional rights of privacy of either psychotherapists or psychotherapeutic patients” and he patient-litigant exception to the privilege only pertains to instances in which a patient has chosen to forego the confidentiality of the privilege, “The patient-litigant exception allows only a limited inquiry into the confidences of the psychotherapist-patient relationship, compelling disclosure of only those matters directly relevant to the nature of the specific emotional or mental condition which the patient has voluntarily disclosed and tendered in his pleadings or in answer to discovery inquiries
Menendez v Superior Court
Mendez murder in CA; search warrant was issued to treating psychologist of sons for info and psychologist filed motion asserting privilege but court rejected privilege and said danger patient accept applied (reason cause to believe that disclosure was necessary to prevent harm)
