Saenz v. Alexander, 91-133
| Decision Date | 31 July 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-133,91-133 |
| Citation | 584 So.2d 1061 |
| Parties | 16 Fla. L. Weekly D1990 Victor M. SAENZ, Petitioner, v. Michelle George ALEXANDER, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Roy Lewis, Lewis & Price, Jacksonville, for petitioner.
Jay C. Howell, Anderson & Howell, Jacksonville, for respondent.
Victor Saenz has filed a petition for writ of certiorari challenging a non-final order allowing respondent, his alleged rape victim, to depose the mental health care professionals who evaluated and treated him, and to subpoena his mental health records incident to his treatment. Finding that under the particular circumstances of this case, the order does not depart from the essential requirements of the law, we deny the petition.
Saenz, a physician, was charged with the sexual battery of respondent, a data entry clerk at the hospital where they were both employed. He signed a "Deferred Prosecution Agreement" providing for 24 months probation supervised by the Department of Corrections (DOC) and including the following provisions:
10) By signing this agreement, you shall authorize the delivery of any reports, X-rays, photographs or documents concerning your medical or psychological status to the Probation Officer.
11) I agree to have an evaluation done by a qualified psychologist, psychiatrist, or counselor, to determine whether or not I am an appropriate candidate for a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the State. I understand that the person doing the evaluation will be chosen by the State.
. . . . .
15) You will attend an orientation session and any other self-improvement session or drug testing as instructed by your Probation Officer.
16) OTHER CONDITIONS:
YOU WILL OBTAIN AN EVALUATION AND SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE COUNSELING WITH DR. GEORGE DEITCHMAN, 9471 BAYMEADOWS ROAD # 303; JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA; PHONE 730-7575.
. . . . .
By signing this deferred prosecution, the undersigned defendant VICTOR M. SAENZ withdraws and/or waives right to speedy trial under the Constitutional Laws of Florida and the United States of America in the cause for which prosecution is being deferred.
Respondent sued Saenz, the hospital, and the hospital's security service for damages arising out of the rape incident. The trial court ordered DOC to produce to respondent's counsel Saenz's probation file, which was done. Thereafter, the court granted respondent's motion for "Court Approval to Depose Therapists and to Subpoena Medical Records," finding that the information sought was relevant to the suit and that Saenz had waived any privilege against disclosure of communications with his psychotherapists in regard to the sexual battery "because he made the communication when he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy and because he consented to the disclosure of a significant part of the communication."
Section 90.503(2), Florida Statutes, gives a patient
the privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, confidential communications or records made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of his mental or emotional condition, including alcoholism and other drug addiction, between himself and his psychotherapist, or persons who are participating in the diagnosis or treatment under the direction of the psychotherapist.
Section 90.503(1)(c) defines a "confidential" communication as one not intended to be disclosed to third persons other than:
1. Those persons present to further the interest of the patient in the consultation, examination, or interview.
2. Those persons necessary for the transmission of the communication.
3. Those persons who are participating in the diagnosis and treatment under the direction of the psychotherapist.
Section 90.503(4)(c) provides that there is no privilege for
communications relevant to an issue of the mental or emotional condition of the patient in any proceeding in which he relies upon the condition as an element of his claim or defense ...
Section 90.507 provides that a person waives the privilege against disclosure of a confidential communication if he
voluntarily discloses or makes the communication when he does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, or consents to disclosure of, any significant part of the matter or communication.
By signing the deferred prosecution agreement, Saenz indicated that he intended his subsequent communications with the psychotherapists to be communicated to a third person other than those set out in section 90.503(1)(c), i.e., his probation officer. These communications therefore did not constitute "confidential communications" to which the privilege would apply.
Unlike Davis v. Wainwright, 1 upon which Saenz relies, petitioner was not compelled to relinquish one constitutional right for another. Like the petitioner in Carson v. Jackson, 2 petitioner voluntarily chose to avail himself of a benefit offered him (Carson avoided incarceration, petitioner avoided prosecution), which was conditioned upon the diagnosis and treatment of his mental state, and communicated with psychotherapists with the knowledge that his communications would be conveyed to others. 3
In Florida Board of Bar Examiners Re: Applicant, 443 So.2d 71 (Fla.1983), the supreme court noted that there is no constitutional right to admission to the bar, and ruled that the requirement that an applicant disclose any history of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Montanez, 4D12–920.
...defendant seeks drug treatment can place the defendant's mental health at issue and waive the privilege, citing Saenz v. Alexander, 584 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (holding that, by entering into deferred prosecution agreement consenting to disclosure of his communications with psychothe......
-
Regina Garcia D. v. Patton
...found few state cases. Plaintiff does direct the Court to two state cases, but both are distinguishable. In Saenz v. Alexander, 584 So. 2d 1061, 1062 (Fla. App. 1991), the party asserting the privilege had waived confidentiality as part of a deferred-prosecution agreement, similar to Mr. Du......
-
Davis v. Sec'y, CASE NO. 6:12-cv-479-Orl-31KRS
...consent. Notwithstanding the prohibition against disclosure contained in § 90.503, Florida Statutes, in Saenz v. Alexander, 584 So. 2d 1061, 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the First District Court of Appeal held that the appellant had waived the privilege against disclosure. In that case, the ap......
-
Olson v. Blasco, 96-0676
...court found that the voluntary disclosure to the probation officer removed the confidentiality of the communications for all purposes. The Saenz court made it clear that the same result would not necessarily be reached if the criminal defendant would have been compelled to forego a constitu......