Debry v. Goates

• Decision Date: 09 March 2000
• Docket Number: No. 981420-CA.,981420-CA.
• Citation: 2000 Utah Ct. App. 58,999 P.2d 582
• Parties: Janice L. DEBRY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Delbert T. GOATES, M.D., Defendant and Appellee.
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals

999 P.2d 582

2000 Utah Ct. App. 58

Janice L. DEBRY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Delbert T. GOATES, M.D., Defendant and Appellee.

No. 981420-CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

March 9, 2000.

Bel-Ami De Montreux, Montreux Freres, PC, Salt Lake City, for Appellant.

Mark L. McCarty and P. Keith Nelson, Richards, Brandt, Miller & Nelson, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.

Before JACKSON, Associate P.J., and BILLINGS, and ORME, JJ.

OPINION

BILLINGS, Judge:

¶1 Plaintiff Janice Debry appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in her malpractice claim in favor of defendant Dr. Delbert Goates. Debry argues that the court erred in determining she had no therapist-patient relationship with Dr. Goates, and that even if a relationship was established, she could not assert the privilege because her mental state was put at issue in the divorce proceeding. We reverse.

BACKGROUND

¶2 "`[I]n reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we view the facts and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. We state the facts in this case accordingly.'" McNair v. Farris, 944 P.2d 392, 393 (Utah Ct.App.1997) (quoting Lopez v. Union Pac. R. Co., 932 P.2d 601, 602 (Utah 1997)).

¶3 The origins of Debry's complaint against Dr. Goates stem from Debry's two divorce suits. Debry's divorce action against her first husband involved a dispute over the custody and guardianship of the couple's two handicapped children. The trial judge appointed Dr. Goates, a licensed child and adult psychiatrist, to perform a custody evaluation. Dr. Goates met with the children several times, and also met with Debry and her former husband to complete the evaluation. Ultimately, Dr. Goates recommended that the court award custody of the children to Debry.

¶4 After the court-ordered evaluation was finished, Dr. Goates maintained a professional relationship with Debry. He saw Debry several times, sometimes with her husband, and prescribed drugs for her. Dr. Goates concedes that Debry was his patient and that he had a therapeutic relationship with her. ¶5 The direct source of this litigation is Debry's divorce from her second husband, Robert Debry. In the course of those divorce proceedings, Mr. Debry solicited an affidavit from Dr. Goates wherein Dr. Goates gave his opinion regarding Debry's mental condition. Dr. Goates gave his affidavit without consulting Debry or obtaining her consent.

¶6 Dr. Goates signed his affidavit on March 28, 1994. Included in the affidavit was a statement that he had met with Debry approximately twenty times; a statement that he was aware Debry had been treated over a long period for depression; and his conclusion that Debry showed traits of a narcissistic personality disorder. Further, he cautioned that excessive alimony may "feed Mrs. Debry's grandiose fantasies and exploitive tendencies for enhanced self-worth and delusions of grandeur."

¶7 Debry filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and request for support in May 1994.¹ The affidavit supporting the motion was signed by Debry on May 26, 1994. Included in the affidavit was an itemized list of expenses showing her monthly financial needs. Among the listed items was $4500 per month for "Medical/Dental/Counseling" expenses.

¶8 On May 27, 1994, Robert Debry filed a motion for a court-ordered mental examination of Debry. The supporting memorandum was signed by Robert Debry on May 26, 1994, the same day Debry signed her support motion affidavit. Robert Debry's motion requested an examination for three reasons. First, he asserted that Debry "will undoubtedly seek a support award which included substantial sums for psychotherapy." Robert Debry thus requested an independent mental exam to determine whether Debry's conditions existed prior to the marriage, and to determine appropriate continuing therapy levels.

¶9 Second, Robert Debry alleged that Debry's alimony request may be inflated because of delusions of grandeur. He argued: "[T]his Court will be called upon to determine an appropriate amount of temporary support and alimony. However, the Affidavit of Dr. Goates, filed herewith, shows that [Debry] suffers from grandiose delusions. Therefore, [Debry's] demands for support may be artificially inflated because of [her] alleged mental illness." Finally, he requested that the court appoint a conservator for Debry. The motion and memorandum for a mental examination included Dr. Goates's affidavit in support.

¶10 Debry withdrew her request for therapy support. Ultimately, the court denied Robert Debry's request for an examination of Debry. The court ruled, however, that if Debry reinstated her request for therapy support, Robert Debry would be entitled to an independent examination.

¶11 Debry in this suit has sued Dr. Goates for malpractice, alleging that he breached her therapist-patient privilege by providing his affidavit to Robert Debry. However, Debry, in her deposition in this litigation, denied that Dr. Goates was her personal therapist or doctor. At various times in her deposition, she stated: "He was never my doctor"; "He was my handicapped kids' doctor"; "He was never working with me"; and "I was never his patient."

¶12 The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Goates, concluding that Debry had not established there was a therapist-patient relationship, or in the alternative, that Debry had waived her privilege by putting her mental state at issue in the divorce. Debry now appeals.

ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶13 Debry asserts the trial court erred in determining there was no therapist-patient relationship, or in the alternative, that the privilege was waived, and thus inappropriately granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Goates. Summary judgment is warranted only when there is no dispute of material facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Scott v. Majors, 1999 UT App 139, ¶8, 980 P.2d 214. We review summary judgment for correctness, giving no deference to the trial court's legal conclusions. See id. Moreover, "[t]he existence of a privilege is a question of law for the court, which we review for correctness." State v. Anderson, 972 P.2d 86, 88 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (citation omitted).

ANALYSIS

I. Therapist-Patient Relationship

¶14 Debry argues that Dr. Goates breached her therapist-patient privilege when he gave an affidavit disclosing his opinion regarding Debry's mental health without her consent. The therapist-patient privilege is defined by the Utah Rules of Evidence. See Utah R. Evid. 506; see also Utah Code Ann. § 58-60-113 (1998) (stating evidentiary privilege for mental health therapists is in accordance with Utah Rule of Evidence 506).

¶15 In interpreting rules, we use the general principles of statutory construction. See State v. Robertson, 932 P.2d 1219, 1228 (Utah 1997). Thus, we first look to the plain language of the rule. See Loporto v. Hoegemann, 1999 UT App 175, ¶ 5, 982 P.2d 586. Also, as with statutes, we view the rule as a whole rather than in a piecemeal fashion. See Thiele v. Anderson, 1999 UT App 056, ¶ 14, 975 P.2d 481.

¶16 The therapist-patient privilege belongs to the patient, see Utah R. Evid. 506(c) ("The privilege may be claimed by the patient."); see also Middleton v. Beckett, 960 P.2d 1213, 1216 (Colo.Ct.App.1998) (stating that "privilege is personal to the patient"), and the patient bears the burden of establishing the applicability of the privilege. See id.

¶17 To establish the privilege, Debry must show that she had a patient-therapist relationship with Dr. Goates: a relationship she subjectively denied in her deposition, but one that Dr. Goates admits.

¶18 Rule 506 defines "patient" as "a person who consults or is examined or interviewed by a physician or mental health therapist." Utah R. Evid. 506(a)(1). However, we read this definition together with Rule 506's general rule of privilege:

If the information is communicated in confidence and for the purpose of diagnosing or treating the patient, a patient has a privilege ... to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing (1) diagnoses made, treatment provided, or advice given, by a physician, or mental health therapist, [and] (2) information obtained by examination of the patient....

Utah R. Evid. 506(b) (emphasis added). By reading the definition of "patient" in conjunction with the general rule of privilege, for the privilege to attach the consultation or examination must be for the purposes of receiving personal diagnosis or treatment from the doctor.

¶19 The objective facts before the trial court, viewed most favorably to Debry, particularly Dr. Goates's description of his relationship with Debry, establish a therapist-patient relationship. Dr. Goates saw Debry several times for treatment and prescribed drugs for her. However, in her deposition, Debry subjectively denied the existence of this type of therapist-patient relationship with Dr. Goates. On appeal, she now asserts that a "patient's" subjective perception is not controlling in determining whether a therapist-patient relationship exists, arguing that objective factors should be used to establish a professional relationship. She relies on State v. Pitchford, 10 Kan.App.2d 293, 697 P.2d 896, 900 (1985), to support the evaluation of objective factors in making such a determination.

¶20 In Pitchford, the police attempted to use blood alcohol test results against a motorist involved in an accident. See id. at 897. The motorist was taken to the hospital after the accident, but was combative during treatment. The physician ordered a blood alcohol test to assist him in determining the proper treatment and to find out why the motorist was so uncooperative. See id. The motorist asserted that the test was in the course of treatment, and therefore privileged. See id. at 898. ¶21 The court concluded that a physician-patient relationship was established even though the patient did not consider...