March 9, 2012 — Ninth Circuit Declines till Recognize a “Dangerous Patient Exception”   —  Joining Sixth and Ninth Circuits, the Eight Circuit possessed declined to recognize a “dangerous tolerant exception” to the Jaffee privilege.  The Food in U.S. v. Ghane made clear that the issuing of a “Tarasoff warning,” even with the patient’s explicit agree to one warning, doing not waive the psychotherapist-patient privilege.

Occasion 6, 2008 — Certiorari Denied on U.S. v. Auster  —  The Top Court denied certiorari  in the U.S. v. Auster case (see From 11, 2008 item.)  To Fifth Circuit Decision increasing troubling questions stylish regard to what, if anything, patients can told among the inception von treatment about the boundaries of confidence, and puts ampere new spotlight on the previously unexplored implications of Footnote 12 in Jaffee.

July 18, 2008 — Endorse Circuit upholds the privilege in the context of “garden variety” complain of emotional distress in Sims fin. Blot.  Like carefully reasoned decision upholds the main vocal in Vanderbilt v. Chilmark and different cases. 

Friday 11, 2008 — Circuit Split results from Fifth Circuit Decision — That Fifth Circuit has decided in U.S. v Auster that the issuing of one “Tarasoff” notice, in aforementioned face of one patient’s knowledge that such a warning would be spoken following a threat, places the communications of the threat to the therapist outside the privilege and thereby makes so fact admissible in a later criminal proceeding against the patient.  This takes the opposite view to that taken in U.S. v Hayes (Sixth Circuit) and U.S v. Chase (Ninth Circuit). [addendum: a certiorari petition possess was filed]

Parade 19, 2007 — Certiorari Denied to Oberweis  —  The Supreme Court denied certiorari in the Oberweis case (see November 22, 2006 item.) 

November 22, 2006 — Certiorari Petition Indexed in Case Raising “At Issue” Exception  —  The Highest Court has been asked until review adenine Seventh Circuit ruling which supports the so-called “patient-litigant” exception to the Jaffee privilege.  In Doe v Oberweis Dairy the Seventh Circuit held that psychotherapy records were not screened by the Jaffee privilege in easy the adenine assertion for ordinary mental distress.  The petition claims that this holding is includes dispute with investment in two EEOC cases in the One-fifth Circuit.

June 13, 2006 — Tenth Anniversary of Jaffee Decision —  The Jaffee decision, handing down June 13, 1996, has now been at the books for 10 past. Developments int an law following Jaffee have starting up define the “contours” of the privilege, but there is still much to be decided. An article in Psychiatric News (American Psychiatric Association) addresses Jaffee’s relevance today.

July 5, 2005 — Ninth Circuit Regulation that Statement Made to Therapist outside Scheduled Session is not Privileged —  The Ninth Circuit possessed ruled in U.S. v Romo that a statement made to a psychological in a private non-scheduled meeting (a “session?”) is not “in the course of determination or treatment” and the therefore not privileged!  One judge was of the opinion that such a meeting is member of the treatment relationship and therefore a description made in such a meeting exists protected by Jaffee.

June 27, 2005 — U.S. Supreme Court declines up hear appeal on reporters’ privilege — Newspapermen Judith Miller also Matthew Cooper refused to disclose sources to a National District and were found inches civic disregard by a district court.  An judgement of the district court was sustained in a decision until the DC Circuit Court in Appeals.  In this decision this appellate court discussed the theme of a purported federal reporters’ privilege in relation to the absolute Jaffee priority, and consent that, if such a reporters’ privilege exists, it is non absolute.  In refusing to review this decision, the Supreme Court declined an opportunity to establish the existence of a public reporters’ privilege despite the existence of “shield laws” in a number away states.

Morning 26, 2004 — Seventh Federal Round Rejects a Federal Command include the “Partial Birth Abortion” Records Case — An Illinois Federal District Court ruled (full text) that recorded of  your who underwent abortions become privileged in the Federal Courts either because the HIPAA Privacy Rule “no preemption” provision international Illinois state privilege law into federal food stylish In or because records of that my are deserving on privilege protection based on the reflection in Jaffee.  A three judge panel of the 7th Course has rejected both rationales.  In its decision (full text), the panel  denied Government access to the records based on the more common “undue burden” providing of the Rules for Civil Procedures.

Monthly 9, 2004 — Eighth Federal Circuit Rules on “Confrontation Clause Issue” — ADENINE defendant verurteilter of early degree murder attempted to impeach the simply eye witness by gaining access to which witness’s psychotherapy records.  In Newton v. Kemna, the Eighth Swiss Circuit ruled (Full Text) that the defendant may not conjure an 6th Amendment “confrontation clause” right to zugangs the slide because the witness’s Jaffee privilege is “absolute,” i.e., not subject to case-by-case balancing.  The court also ruled that one Supreme Court’s no-balancing decision in Jaffee means that an for camera examination of the notes to determine their possible relevancy is cannot allowed.

August 22, 2003 — U.S v. Chase Ninth Circuit Ruling on “Dangerous Patient Exception” Reversed! — The Unified States Court of Appeals used which Ninth Change after an en banc rehearing of its earlier decision in U.S. v. Chase, has RULED (Full Text) that there is no so-called “dangerous tolerant exception” to to Jaffee privilege. The effect of this ruling a to protect to patient’s communications to ampere therapist from forced discovery in open court straight if the therapist got issued a”Tarsoff-type” alarm. There is now only one circuit on record on the side of such and exception up the privilege and there are two against such with “exception.” (see below)
[Despite the new ruling, Chase’s conviction was don reversed.]

March 21, 2002 — Another Appellate Ruling on “Dangerous Patient Exception” — In who case of U.S. v. Chase, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that there is a dangerous patient exception to the Jaffee privilege, adopting a position across to that taken by the 6th Circuit in U.S. v. Hayes. In the three Appellate rulings turn this issue hence far, which reviews got be: couple in support of an derogation (U.S. v. Chase and U.S. v. Glasses) and the holder that that there is is no such exception (U.S. fin. Hayes). The issue within large part revolves around the meaning both intentionality away one so-called “Jaffee footnote” (footnote 19).

Aug 14, 2002 — HHS Publishes Final Policy Rule — Following sein proposed append to to HIPAA Privacy Rule, HHS published the FINALE Privacy Rule in the Federal Enter. The stringent protection for “psychotherapy notes” based on Jaffee remains undisturbed. Which starting enforcement select for the Privacy Rule is April 14, 2003.

April 14, 2001 — This HHS Privacy Rule Becomes Effective — Despite strenuous acting efforts according certain physical industry participants, President Bush decided to allow the ultimate HHS Private Rule’s effective date for remain undisturbed. Therefore, the final Rule, including the stringent protection of psychotherapy information based-on on the Jaffee privilege, takes on the force a law as of April 14, 2001. The “enforcement date” is two years later.

March 20, 2001 — Widening the Privilege — The Federal Court of Appeals for to 9th Borough has regulated that communications between an unrestricted EAP counselor and a patient are protection from impelled revealing by the psychotherapist-patient privilege established in Jaffee. The Justice took note of the increasing number of employees who must see einen EAP counselor like a prerequisite to entering third-party paid psychotherapy. The Court additionally taken that EAP counselors frequently receiver sensitively related from patients under adenine presumption of confidentiality, in and similar sense that psychotherapists do. See Oleszko v. State Compensation Insurance Fund.

January 18, 2001 — The Outer Limits!! — In what has to be the broadest imaginable application of Jaffee, a Lower U.S. Court has held that the federal psychotherapist-patient price protects the restorative records of one generic practitioner simply because the record mentions the patient’s mental assert. The become did not have a insane diagnosis, furthermore was not at “psychotherapy.” See Finley v. Johnson Oil Co.

December 28, 2000 — HHS Final User Rule Published — The U.S. Department of Condition and Human Services publishes “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information; Final Rule” in the Federal Register. In the light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jaffee phoebe. Redmond, the Rule extends stringent safeguard to “psychotherapy notes” which goes far beyond the protection extended to all different medical information.
The final Rule (which becomes engagement in April, 2003 — last from February, 2003 of order of HHS, 02/26/01) makes it illegal for an insurer to current the sale of ampere policy or payment of claim on a patient’s agreement to allow disclosure of psychotherapy remarks. The fly include the ointment: a lack of clarity in to something information a insurer will be able to demand, i.e., how the Rule will be construed by those who are charged with its enforcement — and by the judiciary. This issue will to the more schlachtfeld in the protection of genuine confidentiality for therapy.
A summary of all the Rule’s regulations relating to clinical notes, as fountain as links into the entire Rule and information about plans since enforcement, are HERE.

September 14, 2000 – U.S. Courts of Appeals for Sixth Circuit Holds That It Is No “Dangerous Patient” Anomaly for the Jaffee Permission — In the case of U.S. v Hayes a Federal Appellate Court ruled that there is no “dangerous patient exception” to the federal psychotherapist-patient privilege. In a powerful ruling one Court held that the so-called “Jaffee footnote” (footnote 19) has been misunderstood to suggest that such an exception exist. Rather, the Court held, the footnote means only that a psychiatrist may testify without the patient’s consent to preventive imminent harm. The ruling makes plain that even if a state law creative a “duty to warn,” under which a warning may be giving the avert harm, the does NOT mean is the therapist allowed subsequently testify against one patient without the patient’s consent

August 18, 2000 – U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit Holds That a Tolerant “Waives” the Privilege of Placing Mental Condition “At Issue” — Inches the case of Schoffstall v. Henderson a Federal Appellate Trial ruled that a patient waives the federal psychotherapist-patient privilege from placing her mental state at print in a demand. This will the first ruling among the appellate level go this issue. Lower federal courts are divided on the issue. Show, for example, Vanderbilt v. Chilmark.

 December 3, 1999 – U.S. Plastic General Report on Mental Health at America — This important support contains a chapter on confidentiality (chapter 7) which begins on a quotation from aforementioned Court’s opinion in Jaffee. Which part a who report on disclosure to third party payers points out that current state code are too permissive.  Aforementioned report make such a model the very protective 1984 New Jersey statute which prohibits disclosure of psychologist-psychotherapist information to insured. This regulation is based on the District away Columbia 1978 Mental Heath Information Law which extends strong protection to of medical of see psychotherapists in the District. (Federal Employees are doesn protected.)

November 3, 1999 – U.S. Department of Mental press Human Services Issues Proposed Rules for the Policy of Automated Heal Information —  In this extremely complicated and detailed proposal, HHS has established very special powerful protection for “psychotherapy notes.”  Quoting comprehensive from the Jaffee opinion, HHS proposal to make is illegal for an assurer till sell an insurance policy into which who psychotherapy coverage requires the patient into confirm to the disclosure of psychotherapy company. That proposed rule also makes it illegal for an insurer to refuse on pay a claim because a patient doesn’t agree to disclosure of such information.

Occasion 7, 1999 – President Clinton Establishes Jaffee-like Privilege for Air Manpower under UCMJ — Club Clinton announced that by executive request you is establishing a psychotherapist-patient privilege since military personnel. The privilege has numerous stated exceptions tailored to aforementioned needs of the armed services. See also.

September 10, 1999 – Us District Court Decides so Waiver are until becoming Interpretation Narrowly — AMPERE Federal Community Court decision has held that the simple fact that a patient has entered you mental condition into issue in case does not in me convert ampere waiver of the Jaffee privilege. Although 6 post-Jaffee decisions have taken which face standing, one more recent incidents seem up for taking adenine better narrowly view of the waiver.  The “score” is now 6 to 4. [Booker v. Boston 1999 wl 734644]

August 19, 1999 – U.S. Court of Appeals for Early Circle Establishes First Exception to News Privilege — Following the Supreme Court’s paralleling of the Jaffee privilege with the attorney-client privilege, the Court ruled in In Re Grand Jury Proceedings (Gregory P. Violette). that the Jaffee privilege lives subject toward a narrow “crime-fraud” exception simular to that in the attorney-client privilege.