Therapist-Patient Privilege in a Court-Ordered Evaluation
Dr. L, a psychologist, has been treating Ms. A for 2 years for PTSD stemming from a workplace assault. Ms. A has now sued her employer for negligent security, and the employer's attorney subpoenas Dr. L's complete psychotherapy records. Ms. A's civil attorney objects on privilege grounds. The employer argues that by filing suit and claiming emotional distress damages, Ms. A put her mental condition at issue. Separately, the court has ordered Dr. L to conduct a forensic evaluation of Ms. A's current functioning for the litigation. Dr. L's treatment notes contain entries about a separate, unrelated childhood trauma and about Ms. A's ambivalence toward her spouse.
1. Analyze the privilege question. Which records are likely discoverable and which are not, and how should Dr. L respond to the subpoena?
Read the worked answer
Filing a claim that places mental condition at issue generally waives privilege to the extent of the waiver - here, the PTSD, its causation, and its current severity are squarely in controversy because she claims emotional distress damages. But waiver is not global. Courts typically limit disclosure to what is relevant to the claimed condition and its damages.
The childhood trauma entry may be relevant to differential causation and is likely discoverable if the defense can show it bears on the claimed injury. The marital ambivalence is likely collateral and outside the scope of the waiver; Dr. L should not produce it without a court order.
Dr. L should not unilaterally comply with the subpoena or unilaterally refuse. The correct step is to notify the patient and her counsel, assert privilege on her behalf pending a ruling, and seek a protective order with in camera review and redaction of unrelated material. Producing the full file without objection would breach the duty to protect the therapeutic relationship; ignoring the subpoena would expose her to contempt.
2. Can Dr. L serve as both treating clinician and court-ordered forensic evaluator for Ms. A? What are the role-conflict issues?
Read the worked answer
No - serving in both roles is a dual-role conflict and should be declined. The treating role requires alliance, advocacy for the patient's interests, and acceptance of the patient's account. The forensic role requires objectivity, neutrality, and disclosure that the product may be used against the patient. These are structurally incompatible.
The specific harms: Ms. A may disclose material to Dr. L as therapist that she would not disclose to a forensic examiner, and that material could surface in the forensic report; her therapeutic trust is compromised by knowing the evaluator may testify adversely; and Dr. L's 2 years of clinical impressions create a confirmatory posture that undermines the neutrality the court-ordered evaluation requires. The forensic evaluee must also receive an informed-consent warning that the evaluator is not her doctor - a warning that is incoherent coming from her actual doctor.
Dr. L should decline the forensic appointment, explain the conflict to the court, and recommend that an independent evaluator be appointed. She may continue treatment, and she should clarify with Ms. A what information from treatment may become discoverable.