Segarra v. Segarra
| Decision Date | 28 June 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D05-2862.,3D05-2862. |
| Citation | 932 So.2d 1159 |
| Parties | Manuel A. SEGARRA, III, Petitioner, v. Esperanza SEGARRA, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Manuel A. Segarra, III, in proper person.
Esperanza Segarra, in proper person.
Before GERSTEN, SUAREZ, and ROTHENBERG, JJ.
Manuel A. Segarra, III (the father), filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking to quash the trial courts discovery order. We grant the writ of certiorari and quash the trial courts discovery order allowing production of privileged communications.
The father asserts that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law, by ordering production of privileged joint counseling records. Esperanza Segarra, (the mother), contends that the trial courts decision was proper because the psychotherapist-patient privilege does not apply to communications in joint counseling sessions. Based on the facts of this case, we agree with the father that the communications and records from the joint sessions are privileged.
A petition for writ of certiorari is the appropriate method to review a discovery order when the order departs from the essential requirements of the law, causes material injury throughout the remainder of the proceedings below, and effectively leaves no adequate remedy on appeal. See Nussbaumer v. State, 882 So.2d 1067, 1071 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). The entry of an order compelling the disclosure of communications protected by a legal privilege is a departure from the essential requirements of the law. See Nussbaumer, 882 So.2d at 1072.
Florida law recognizes several privileges including: attorney-client privilege, psychotherapist-patient privilege, husband-wife privilege, priest-penitent privilege, and accountant-client privilege. See §§ 90.502, 90.503, 90.504, 90.505, 90.5055, Fla. Stat. (2004). The patient, client, or penitent holds the privilege. The purpose of these privileges is to protect confidential communications between the parties and to encourage people seeking treatment or advice to speak freely on all matters. However, the parties may waive the privileges. See McKinlay v. McKinlay, 648 So.2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
There is no Florida case law that directly addresses whether the psychotherapist-patient privilege is waived in joint counseling sessions. The mother suggests we follow case law from other jurisdictions. See Redding v. Virginia Mason Med. Ctr., 75 Wash.App. 424, 878 P.2d 483 (1994); Hahman v. Hahman, 129 Ariz. 101, 628 P.2d 984 (1981). However, we are not persuaded and decline to follow Redding or Hahman.
In Redding and Hahman, the courts analogized the attorney-client privilege to the psychotherapist-patient privilege. The courts held that in litigation between joint patients, the psychotherapist-patient privilege does not protect statements made by one of the joint patients to the counselor during the joint counseling sessions. See Redding, 878 P.2d at 485; Hahman, 628 P.2d at 986.
In Washington and Arizona, the psychotherapist-patient privilege explicitly requires confidential communications between a client and psychologist remain privileged against compulsory disclosure to the same extent and subject to the same conditions as confidential communications between an attorney and a client. See Redding, 878 P.2d at 485; Hahman, 628 P.2d at 985. Therefore, the courts properly extended the concept of waiver in joint attorney-client sessions to waiver in joint psychotherapist-patient sessions.
However, in Florida, the psychotherapist-patient privilege does not include language that the privilege should be subject to the same conditions as the attorney-client privilege or any other statutory privilege. Section 90.503, Florida Statutes (2004), provides that a patient has a 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 the patients mental or emotional condition. See § 90.503(2), Fla. Stat. (2004). Thus, we are not required to analogize the psychotherapist-patient privilege to the confidential communications between an attorney and a client.
We must be cognizant of the reason for the patient-psychotherapist privilege and respect the parties privacy expectations when they reveal confidential information. The psychotherapist-patient privilege enables a person suffering from mental, emotional, or behavioral disorders to seek services and treatment without being needlessly exposed to public scrutiny. See Cedars Healthcare Group, Ltd. v. Freeman, 829 So.2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
Here, the father and mother attended joint counseling sessions to improve their relationship and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Lucas H.
...to Tennessee, Florida recognizes several enumerated privileges, including the psychologist-patient privilege. See Segarra v. Segarra , 932 So.2d 1159, 1160 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2006). Florida courts have also previously indicated that a writ of certiorari is an appropriate manner of review for a d......
-
Cruz-Govin v. Torres
...of communications protected by a legal privilege is a departure from the essential requirements of the law. Segarra v. Segarra, 932 So.2d 1159, 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); see also Viveiros v. Cooper, 832 So.2d 868, 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Palm Beach County Sch. Bd. v. Morrison, 621 So.2d 464......
-
State v. Topps
...communications between the parties and to encourage people seeking treatment or advice to speak freely on all matters.” Segarra, 932 So.2d at 1160. Such “confidentiality is essential to the conduct of successful psychiatric care.” Attorney ad Litem for D.K. v. Parents of D.K., 780 So.2d 301......
-
Kane v. Sanders
...the proceedings below, or effectively leave Dr. Sanders without an adequate remedy on appeal. Id. at 271 (quoting Segarra v. Segarra, 932 So.2d 1159, 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) ).Analysis: Case No. 3D17–148 (Contempt) The trial court has inherent authority to hold a party in contempt for inten......
-
Emergencies and case management conference
...and to determine whether he has substance abuse or other problems which could harm the children affirmed. • Segarra v. Segarra, 932 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Trial court erred by ordering production of privileged joint counseling records. Where counseling sessions were not ordered by ......
-
Trial and evidence
...to the counselor will remain confidential, regardless of whether the therapy is an individual or joint session. [ Segarra v. Segarra, 932 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (where counseling sessions were not ordered by the court, father did not waive psychotherapist-patient privilege when he a......
-
Discovery and use of experts
...in the past or are attending at this time, as the counseling is confidential and not discoverable by the lawyer. [ Segarra v. Segarra, 932 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)(trial court erred by ordering production of privileged joint counseling records; where counseling sessions were not order......
-
Privileges
...privilege is not waived because a husband and wife participate in a joint counseling session. Segarra v. Segarra , 932 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). 10.17.2 Effect of Claim of Privilege F.S. §90.510 In any civil case or proceeding in which a party claims a privilege as to a communication n......