Plunkett v. Ginsburg, A94A2012
Decision Date | 17 February 1995 |
Docket Number | No. A94A2012,A94A2012 |
Citation | 217 Ga.App. 20,456 S.E.2d 595 |
Parties | PLUNKETT v. GINSBURG. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Goldner, Sommers, Scrudder & Bass, Stephen L. Goldner, Atlanta, and Tammy S. Skinner, Alpharetta, for appellant.
William L. Skinner, Decatur, for appellee.
We granted interlocutory appeal to consider the trial court's grant of a motion for protective order. The order prohibited the discovery of the records of a psychiatrist treating plaintiff Ginsburg, who had sued Plunkett as a result of an automobile accident.
The accident occurred on June 13, 1991 and Ginsburg, an optometrist, has not worked again since. Her complaint alleged that she had suffered "severe and great pain of body and mind." During discovery, Dr. Rascoe, the psychiatrist, was identified as one "who rendered treatment to her following the automobile accident." Ginsburg had also been treated by Dr. Rascoe before the accident in connection with "anxiety related problems in connection with her pregnancy." Ginsburg's answers to interrogatories stated that she "continued to be seen by Dr. Rascoe for anxiety resulting from her injuries in this automobile accident and depression following same."
Ginsburg underwent an independent orthopedic examination of her cervical condition. The orthopedist reported that she was suffering "major psychosocial dysfunction" and that "the magnitude of her subjective complaints [is] not substantiated by objective clinical findings."
Below, Ginsburg entered into the record a sworn stipulation that she "does not contend that her inability to engage in her employment is the result of a psychiatric condition." Ginsburg, however, reserves the right to contend that the "trauma of this incident has caused her pain and suffering and possibly some depression ..." as well as "mental pain and suffering that was directly caused by the physical trauma she suffered...." While this is not stipulated by both parties, it is an admission in judicio as to Ginsburg. Walker v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 209 Ga.App. 517, 518(1), 434 S.E.2d 63 (1993); see Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hand, 211 Ga.App. 703, 705, 440 S.E.2d 92 (1994).
The trial court conducted an in camera review of Dr. Rascoe's records and concluded that "the information contained in Dr. Rascoe's records is privileged, pursuant to OCGA § 24-9-21(5)." The court further concluded that the fact of employment of and treatment by a psychiatrist, including dates of treatment, is not privileged. The records reviewed by that court have been made part of the record here by a supplemental record. We have also reviewed them and agree that to the extent the documents reflect "communications" between psychiatrist and patient, they are privileged.
Wiles v. Wiles, 264 Ga. 594, 595(1), 448 S.E.2d 681 (1994). 1
While psychiatric records are not absolutely privileged, (Emphasis in original.) Dynin v. Hall, 207 Ga.App. 337, 338(1), 428 S.E.2d 89 (1993). The privilege may be waived by the affirmative act of calling one's psychiatrist/psychologist as a witness in one's behalf and asking about mental status. Fields v. State, 221 Ga. 307, 308(2), 144 S.E.2d 339 (1965). The present situation, however, does not fall within this category. In fact, Ginsburg has stipulated that she is not seeking recovery of any expenses incurred in seeing Dr. Rascoe.
The privilege does not extend, however, to any communications made to nurses or attendants, unless they were acting as agents of the attending psychiatrist, nor, as noted by the trial court, does it preclude discovery of the fact and dates of treatment. Annandale at Suwanee v. Weatherly, 194 Ga.App. 803, 804, 392 S.E.2d 27 (1990).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Advantage Behavioral Health Sys. v. Cleveland, A19A0656
...to agents of covered mental health providers. See Hoover , supra, 337 Ga. App. at 88-89 (1), 785 S.E.2d 918 ; Plunkett v. Ginsburg , 217 Ga. App. 20, 21, 456 S.E.2d 595 (1995). See also Myers v. State , 251 Ga. 883, 884 (2), 310 S.E.2d 504 (1984) ("Where the nurse is an agent of the hospita......
-
Cooksey v. Landry
...is limited in that it applies only to psychiatrist-patient communications, not to all psychiatric records. Plunkett v. Ginsburg, 217 Ga.App. 20, 21, 456 S.E.2d 595 (1995). Thus, the fact of treatment and the dates on which treatment was rendered are not privileged. See Herendeen, supra, 279......
-
Georgia Advocacy Office v. Borison
...with such record requests after reviewing them to ensure the redaction of any privileged communications. See Plunkett v. Ginsburg, 217 Ga.App. 20, 22, 456 S.E.2d 595 (1995) (case remanded to trial court to review psychiatric records); see Ridgeview Institute, 194 Ga.App. at 807(1), 392 S.E.......
-
Duronslet v. Kamps
...as an agent of the physician. (See The New Wigmore, supra, § 6.9.1, p. 842, fn. 100, citing cases, including Plunkett v. Ginsburg (1995) 217 Ga.App. 20, 456 S.E.2d 595, 597 [“ ‘[t]he privilege does not extend, however, to any communications made to [203 Cal.App.4th 736]nurses or attendants,......
-
The Absolute Privilege Between Patient and Psychiatrist in Civil Cases
...Ga. App. 337, 339, 428 S.E.2d 89, 91 (1993); Weksler v. Weksler, 173 Ga. App. 250, 325 S.E.2d 874, 875 (1985). 22. Plunkett v. Ginsburg, 217 Ga. App. 20, 21, 4456 595, 597 (1995). 23. Bobo v. State, 256 Ga. 357, 349 S.E.2d 690 (1986). 24. "Thus we must also conclude that in a proper case a ......