DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

MA Court: State's interests don't trump psychotherapist-patient privilege

Posted on September 3, 2010 by Dissent

Dr. Ken Pope mentioned this case on his mail list today, and I thought it might also be of interested to blog readers as it addresses whether the state’s interesting in investigating a psychiatrist trumps psychotherapist-patient privilege.

Here’s the summary of this case from Massachusetts, Board of Registration in Medicine vs. John Doe, as included in the court’s opinion:

This case arises out of an investigation by the Board of Registration in Medicine (board) into the treatment practices of John Doe, a board-certified psychiatrist who specializes in pain management. As part of its investigation, the board subpoenaed the treatment records of twenty-four of Doe’s patients. Doe refused to comply with the subpoena, and pursuant to G.L. c. 233, § 10, [FN2] the board commenced an action to enforce it. A judge in the Superior Court ruled that the records were not protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege, see G.L. c. 233, § 20B [FN3] (the statute), and ordered Doe to produce them. Doe appealed and we transferred the case on our own motion.

Doe contends that the subpoenaed records are protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege set out in G.L. c. 233, § 20B. The board argues that the privilege does not apply because Doe does not meet the qualifications of a “psychotherapist” as defined by the statute. The board maintains that Doe devotes most of his time to pain management. Because pain management is not the practice of psychiatry, the argument goes, Doe does not devote a substantial amount of time to the practice of psychiatry as required by the statute. In the alternative, the board contends that, even if Doe is a psychotherapist as defined by the statute, the records must be produced in this case because the board’s compelling need to examine the records in furtherance of its mission to protect the public safety outweighs the confidentiality interests protected by the privilege. The record establishes that pain management is a subspecialty of psychiatry; consequently, Doe devotes a substantial amount of time to the practice of psychiatry. Thus, we conclude that Doe is a psychotherapist within the meaning of the statute. In addition, we conclude that the psychotherapist-patient privilege statute does not permit a weighing of the public interest against the interests protected by the privilege. We therefore vacate the judgment stating that Doe is not a psychotherapist and ordering him to produce the records, and remand to the Superior Court for entry of an order quashing the subpoena.

You can read the entire opinion here.

Related posts:

  • Court: Surviving spouse is "personal representative"
Category: Uncategorized

Post navigation

← Malay court tells doctors to get female patients' consent before taking pictures of private parts
Investigators Find Famous DJ’s Credit Card Details for Sale →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Privacy commissioner reviewing reported Ontario Health atHome data breach
  • CMS warns Medicare providers of fraud scheme
  • Ex-student charged with wave of cyber attacks on Sydney uni
  • Detaining Hackers Before the Crime? Tamil Nadu’s Supreme Court Approves Preventive Custody for Cyber Offenders
  • Potential Cyberattack Scrambles Columbia University Computer Systems
  • 222,000 customer records allegedly from Manhattan Parking Group leaked
  • Breaches have consequences (sometimes) (1)
  • Kansas City Man Pleads Guilty for Hacking a Non-Profit
  • British national “IntelBroker” charged with causing $25 million in damages; U.S. seeks his extradition from France
  • France issues press statement about arrest of ShinyHunters members

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • Germany Wants Apple, Google to Remove DeepSeek From Their App Stores
  • Supreme Court upholds Texas law requiring age verification on porn sites
  • Justices nix Medicaid ‘right’ to choose doctor, defunding Planned Parenthood in South Carolina
  • European Commission publishes its plan to enable more effective law enforcement access to data
  • Sacred Secrets: The Biblical Case for Privacy and Data Protection
  • Microsoft’s Departing Privacy Chief Calls for Regulator Outreach
  • Nestle USA Settles Suit Over Job-Application Medical Questions

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.