How have courts interpreted "patient privilege" in the context of a mental health case?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Luhdorff v. Superior Court, 166 Cal.App.3d 485, 212 Cal.Rptr. 516 (Cal. App. 1985):
We recognize "the psychotherapist-patient privilege is to be liberally construed in favor of the patient." (Roberts v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 330, 337, 107 Cal.Rptr. 309, 508 P.2d 309.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
How have courts treated mental health issues in the context of mental health care cases? (California, United States of America)
How have courts treated the issue of "patient privilege" in a mental health case? (California, United States of America)
Does Section 1054.3(b) of the Mental Health Act restrict the prosecution's access to materials derived from mental health examinations conducted under section 1054 of the Act, which were obtained from a mental health clinic? (California, United States of America)
How have courts treated mental health issues in a mental health case? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted privilege in cases involving personal injury cases? (California, United States of America)
Can a court order the publication of the name and address of a patient who allegedly raped a patient at a mental health facility? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted the standard jury instruction in a mental health case? (California, United States of America)
Does the court have any case law with respect to the interpretation of the law in the context of personal injury cases? (California, United States of America)
How have courts treated cases involving young defendants with severe intellectual deficiency in the context of mental health issues? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted section 1016.5 of the California Immigration Code and how have the courts interpreted the word 'court' in that section? (California, United States of America)
