|
The recent
state supreme court decision in Falco v. Institute of Living traces
back to Falco's efforts to compel a psychiatric hospital to provide
him with the identity of his attacker. The superior court granted
the bill of discovery filed by the patient, and the appellate court
affirmed, 50 Conn. App. 654, 718 A.2d 1029. In the hospital's appeal
to the Connecticut Supreme Court, the hospital argued, inter alia,
that the trial court improperly exceeded its authority by recognizing
an exception to the psychiatrist-patient privilege that had not
been enacted by the legislature. The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed
and held that the psychiatrist-patient privilege may be overridden
only by legislatively enacted exceptions and that these statutory
exceptions should be narrowly construed. The court stated that Falco's
right to redress injuries in court, Conn. Const. art. first, § 10,
was inapplicable since the privilege did not restrict the cause
of action itself, but rather merely restricted the availability
of evidence.
Background
Information
In 1995, an inpatient at the Institute of Living ('IOL') was attacked
without provocation by another patient while attending a group meeting.
In 1997, the IOL’s insurance carrier denied the patient’s claim
for personal and psychological injuries stemming from the attack,
and as a result, the 'victim' brought an action against the IOL
seeking a bill of discovery. The bill requested that the IOL provide
the 'victim' critical information about the attacker, including
the full name, last known address, social security number, date
of birth, the medical and psychiatric records of the attacker while
he was an inpatient at the IOL in March, 1995, and all incident
reports made by the IOL regarding the attack. The trial court granted
the victim’s request and ordered the IOL to provide the attacker’s
name, address and social security number. The Appellate Court affirmed
the decision.
The Supreme Court granted review in the matter, agreeing to decide
whether the trial court exceeded its authority by recognizing an
exception to the attacker’s privilege that the legislature had not
enacted. In reversing the Appellate Court, the Supreme Court found
that the statutory privilege which exists between the psychiatrist
and the patient under Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-146e prohibited the disclosure
of the information sought in this case, and unless one of the specifically
defined statutory exceptions is met, the psychiatric patient’s identity
is confidential and the maintenance of that confidence is 'essential
to the … purpose of preserving the therapeutic relationship as the
confidence of any other information in a patient’s record.'
While it is true that the legislature carved out certain exceptions
to the confidentiality statute, none of those exceptions applied
here.* In addition, a person’s right to redress as provided in the
state Constitution does not outweigh this statutorily protected
confidence. Practically speaking, the 'victim' had other means by
which to obtain this information, and the court seemed a bit perturbed
by the fact that the 'victim' had chosen the most convenient way
to obtain the information, rather than exhausting other means at
his disposal before resorting to a court order.
* The exceptions are codified at Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-146f. They
are numerous, but include communications to another health facility
for diagnosis and treatment, when substantial risk of imminent physical
injury by the patient to himself or others exists, when fees are
at issue, when court ordered for an examination to determine whether
a conservator is appropriate, in a civil proceeding when patient
introduces his mental condition as an element of his claim or defense,
etc. Please let me know if you would like a full copy of this statute.
|
