The confidential relations and communications between a licensed psychologist or licensed school psychologist and client are placed upon the same basis as those between physician and patient under division (B) of section 2317.02 of the Revised Code. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require any such privileged communication to be disclosed.
HISTORY: 134 v S 176 (Eff 9-22-72); 137 v H 1. Eff 8-26-77.
Ohio Adminstrative Code
General rules of professional conduct: confidentiality. OAC 4732-17-01.
Research Aids
Privileged communications:
O-Jur3d: Evid & Witn § 809; Phys & S § 175
Am-Jur2d: Phys & S § 169
Law Review
The beginning of the end for the psychotherapist-patient privilege. Comment. 60 CinLRev 797 (1992).
The psychiatric duty to warn: walking a tightrope of uncertainty. Comment. 56 CinLRev 269 (1987).
Psychotherapeutic disclosures: a conflict between right and duty. Judy Beckner Sloan & Stuart B. Klein. 9 ToledoLRev 57 (1977).
CASE NOTES AND OAG
Analysis
Adoption records.
Basis and scope of privilege.
Motion in limine.
Privileges.
School psychologists.
Scope of privilege.
Termination of parental rights.
Unlicensed psychologist.
Waiver.
Where adoptive parents brought a wrongful adoption action in their own capacity after the child had obtained the age of majority, the department of human services could not compel disclosure of the adoptee's medical and psychological records without the adoptee's consent: Sirca v. Medina Cty. Dept. of Human Serv., 145 Ohio App. 3d 182, 762 N.E.2d 407 (2001).
Statements made by an individual to a licensed psychologist or licensed independent social worker in the course of an examination ordered by a court for forensic purposes are not communications received "from a client in that relation," RC § 2317.02(G)(1): In re Jones, 99 Ohio St. 3d 203 (2003).
Denial of a motion in limine to prevent psychological witnesses from testifying at a hearing was not a final appealable order: Henderson v. Henderson, 150 Ohio App. 3d 339, 2002-Ohio-6496, 780 N.E.2d 1072 (2002).
Denial of a motion in limine to prevent psychological witnesses from testifying at a hearing was not a final appealable order: Henderson v. Henderson, 150 Ohio App. 3d 339, 2002-Ohio-6496, 780 N.E.2d 1072 (2002).
In an action seeking a determination of dependency and neglect and an order of permanent custody of a child, the statutes of Ohio make no exception to the privilege attaching to the communications between psychiatrist and patient, psychologist and patient (or client), and to the privilege, if it exists, between social workers employed in the office of the psychiatrist and psychologist and client: In re Decker, 20 Ohio App. 3d 203, 20 Ohio B. 248, 485 N.E.2d 751 (1984).
In the case of a licensed and certificated school psychologist, his client is the student not the employing educational system, although it is the parents or legal guardians of the student who control and who may waive the privilege provided for in RC § 4732.19 until the student attains 18 years of age: OAG No. 75-047 (1975).
The records of a school psychologist whether licensed under Chapter 4732. or certificated pursuant to RC § 3319.22 do not constitute public records within the purview of RC § 149.43. However, authorized board of education personnel do have access to the reports and recommendations of the certificated school psychologist: OAG No. 75-047 (1975).
In the absence of a specific statutory waiver or exception, the testimonial privileges established under RC § 2317.02(B)(1) (concerning communications between a physician and patient), RC § 4732.19 (concerning communications between a licensed psychologist and client), and RC § 2317.02(G) (concerning communications between a licensed counselor or licensed social worker and client) are applicable to communications made by a parent in the course of treatment ordered as part of a reunification plan in an action for dependency and neglect: In re Wieland, 89 Ohio St. 3d 535, 733 N.E.2d 1127 (2000).
Plaintiff's psychiatric or psychological records remained privileged because they were not communications that related causally or historically to physical or mental injuries relevant to issues in the defamation suit. Plaintiff did not make a claim for emotional distress or mental anguish: McCoy v. Maxwell, 139 Ohio App. 3d 356, 743 N.E.2d 974 (2000).
Under Ohio law no patient/physician privilege exists between wife and psychologist and psychiatrist where the wife consulted them about problems of her husband and the physicians revealed information about the husband to others: Howes v. U.S., 887 F.2d 729, (6th Cir. 1989).
The psychologist-client privilege under RC § 4732.19 exists only when the client is voluntarily seeking help from the treating psychologist: In re Smith, 7 Ohio App. 3d 75, 7 Ohio B. 88, 454 N.E.2d 171 (1982).
Under RC § 2921.22(F)(1), a licensed psychologist is not required to report a felony which has been or is being committed when such information is privileged under RC § 4732.19 due to the psychologist-client relationship: OAG No. 88-027 (1988).
Termination of parental rights
Admission of testimony of the mother's psychiatrist in violation of RC §§ 2317.02 and 4732.19 at the hearing on termination of parental rights was prejudicial: In re Brown, 98 Ohio App. 3d 337, 648 N.E.2d 576 (1994).
The communications were not privileged pursuant to RC §§ 4732.19 and 2317.02(B) where the psychologist was not licensed: State v. Wood, 141 Ohio App. 3d 634, 752 N.E.2d 990 (2001).
The inmate had signed a waiver as to mental health services that not all communications were confidential: State v. Farthing, 146 Ohio App. 3d 720, 2001-Ohio-7077, 767 N.E.2d 1242 (2001).
Any privilege under RC § 2317.02 or 4732.19 is automatically waived under RC § 2151.42.1(A)(3) in certain child abuse cases: State v. Stewart, 111 Ohio App. 3d 525, 676 N.E.2d 912 (1996).
The mere act of plaintiff's filing a wrongful death action as the personal representative of her deceased son did not waive her privilege under RC §§ 2317.02 and 4732.19 as to counseling provided by her psychologist: Colling v. Franklin Cty. Children Serv., 76 Ohio App. 3d 736, 603 N.E.2d 338 (1991).