How has the privilege to prevent disclosure of a confidential communication been interpreted in the context of a personal injury action?

privy to a confidential communication. (Menendez v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 448, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 92, 834 P.2d 786.) "In this aspect, the `privilege to prevent' effectively repudiates the old `eavesdropper rule,' under which the privilege is defeated whenever any `outside' `third personeavesdropper, finder or interceptor overhears or otherwise receives the confidential communication....' [Citations.]" (Ibid.)

In categorically rejecting the notion that the privilege is lost as soon as any communication loses its confidential status, the court in Menendez v. Superior Court focused on the purpose of the privilege, which is to protect the patient's "right to privacy and promote the psychotherapeutic relationship." (Menendez v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 448, 11 Cal. Rptr.2d 92, 834 P.2d 786.) The court concluded the privilege may survive even broad disclosure of a communication because the psychotherapeutic relationship, much like other relationships, may survive such a disclosure. (Ibid.)

The relatively high importance of protecting psychotherapeutic confidentiality can be seen in the fact that, unlike the physician-patient privilege, the psychotherapist-patient privilege is not subject to a good cause exception in personal injury actions. (City of Alhambra v. Superior Court (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 513, 519, 168 Cal.Rptr. 49.) However, as important as psychotherapeutic confidentiality is, even its value may be outweighed by other societal interests. Thus, where a patient is dangerous and disclosure of confidential

[105 Cal.Rptr.2d 481]