 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McCoy v. Maxwell9/29/2000
JUDGMENT: Reversed and remanded.
Appellant, Elaine McCoy, appeals the judgment issued by the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, granting appellee Jennifer Maxwell's motion to compel discovery.
On December 28, 1999, appellant filed a complaint against appellee for malicious prosecution, libel, and slander. On January 21, 1999, appellee filed a motion for a definite statement, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(E). On February 10, 1999, the trial court granted appellee's motion and ordered appellant to file an amended complaint. Appellant's amended complaint set forth causes of action for libel and slander and included the following allegations:
"1. On or about November 23, 1998, Defendant, Jennifer Maxwell, maliciously filed a report with the Kent State University Police Department in which she falsely accused Plaintiff of criminal conduct and made other false statements which maliciously maligned Plaintiff's character and reputation, including, but not limited to, the statement that Plaintiff was an alcoholic whose alcoholism was out of control, that Plaintiff was an unstable individual who had been sexually harassing Defendant and, that Plaintiff had been stalking Defendant and might potentially try to kill her.
"2. Plaintiff has suffered irreparable damages, including damage to her personal and professional reputation as a proximate result of Defendant's maliciously libeling her."
On August 10, 1999, appellee filed a motion to compel discovery of the name and address of appellant's psychologist and/or psychiatrist and her treatment records. Appellee argued that the information was discoverable because appellant had made a claim for damages, and appellee was entitled to verify damages that appellant may seek for emotional distress. Appellee also argued that because appellant's complaint alleged that appellee stated that appellant was an unstable person, appellant's psychological and psychiatric records may provide information relevant to appellee's defense.
On September 22, 1999, appellant filed a memorandum in opposition to appellee's motion to compel discovery. Appellant argued that the records were not relevant because she had not made any claim for emotional distress, and that if they were relevant, the records are privileged and undiscoverable under R.C. 2317.02 and R.C. 4732.19. On October 8, 1999, the trial court granted appellee's motion to compel discovery and ordered that appellant provide to appellee's attorney the names and addresses of all treating psychologists and psychiatrists and the appropriate medical releases for records. The trial court concluded that the information was discoverable because appellant's psychiatric background was relevant to appellee's defense. From this judgment, appellant assigns the following error:
"The trial court committed prejudicial error as a matter of law in granting a motion to compel plaintiff to divulge privileged information regarding any psychiatric or psychological treatment."
Appellant contends that any information about her psychiatric or psychological treatment is privileged under R.C. 2317.02(B) and R.C. 4732.19 and cannot be discovered unless that privilege is waived. Appellant asserts that because she is not claiming damages for emotional distress in her lawsuit against appellee, she did not waive the physician-patient or psychologist-client privilege.
Pursuant to R.C. 4732.19, confidential communications between a licensed psychologist and client are "privileged in the same manner as communications between a physician and a patient." State v. Stewart (1996), 111 Ohio App.3d 525, 530, 676 N.E.2d 912. R.C. 2317.02 governs the physician-p
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|