Two former police officers sued a municipality, claiming that they had been subjected to a racially hostile work environment. They asked for mental anguish damages and the defendant municipality attempted to engage in discovery regarding the basis for their mental anguish claims. The plaintiffs refused to comply with the discovery requests, asserting that physician and psychotherapist doctor-patient privilege protected their medical, prescription, and psychological counseling records. The Alaska Supreme Court agreed, concluding that a plaintiff asserting "garden-variety" mental anguish claims in the context of an employment discrimination lawsuit did not constitute an automatic waiver of the applicable privileges. Kennedy v. Municipality of Anchorage, #S-14762, 2013 Alas. Lexis 104.
    Defense Dept. revises its policy on intelligence interrogations, detainee debriefings and tactical questioning. Among other things, it limits the role of psychologists advising interrogators: "Behavioral science consultants may not be used to determine detainee phobias for the purpose of exploitation during the interrogation process." DoD Directive 3115.09 (9 Oct. 2008).
     "The EAP is a counseling program that helps employees manage job-related stress, solve personal problems, and deal with addictive or suicidal behaviors. Referral to the Philadelphia Police Department's EAP is a non-punitive action. EAP use by the officers is voluntary and does not appear on their employment record. Because plaintiff does not even allege otherwise, she cannot make out a prima facie case on this claim." Webb v. City of Philadelphia, #05-5238, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 42727 (E.D. Pa.).
     Federal jury in Tucson awards a psychologist and a therapist almost $2.9 million after finding that the former police Chief and others conspired not to renew their contract to provide counseling services. Gilmartin v. City of Tucson, #4:00-cv-00352 (D. Ariz. 2006). [2006 FP Nov].
     A deranged and suicidal gunman shot and killed three people and wounded two more. Although the gunman had been the patient of psychotherapists, he had not communicated any threats of physical violence, and the California legislature "has expressly precluded monetary recovery from psychotherapists in this situation." Calderon v. Glick, #B177040, 131 Cal. App.4th 224, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 707, 2005 Cal. App. Lexis 1121 (2d App. Dist. 2005). {N/R}
     A therapist has a duty to warn a third person if he believes his patient poses a serious risk of grave bodily injury to another. In this case, a former police officer that was undergoing therapy carried out a homicidal threat. The court also noted that when a communication of the serious threat of physical violence is received by a therapist from a member of the patient's immediate family and is shared for the purpose of facilitating and furthering the patient's treatment, the fact that the family member is not technically a "patient" does not defeat the psychotherapist-patient privilege. Ewing v. Goldstein, #B163112, 120 Cal.App.4th 807, 2004 Cal. App. Lexis 1131 (2d App. Dist. 2004). {N/R}
     A treating psychiatrist or psychologist who releases a patient simply because he has no insurance, when the patient has been involuntarily committed under state law as a danger to himself and others, may be liable to the patient and any person that patient injures. Immunities for treating psychiatrists are not applicable. Bragg v. Valdez, #B158819, 111 Cal.App.4th 421, 3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 804, 2003 Cal. App. Lexis 1264 (2d Dist. 2003). {N/R}
     The fact that a person participated in psychotherapy as a condition of probation does not waive his therapist-patient privilege, and those records cannot be subpoenaed. The motive for participating in psychotherapy is immaterial as to whether a privilege attaches. Story v. Super. Ct. (Peo.), # H024993, 2003 Cal. App. Lexis 865 (5th Dist. 2003). {N/R}
     Appeals court sustains termination of a police officer with an attitude problem, who was not fully cooperative with his remedial therapy. "Doctors who oversaw the program testified that [he] did not successfully complete the program and refused to actively engage in it." Moore v. NOPD, #2001-CA-0174, 813 So.2d 507, 2002 La. App. Lexis 612 (La.App. 2002). {N/R}
     The Sixth Circuit rejects a “dangerous patient” exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege. U.S. v. Hayes, 227 F.3d 578, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 23197, 2000 FED App. 0320P (6th Cir.). {N/R}
     Jury awards an ex-officer over $280,000; police psychologist informed potential victims of possible harm to them by the officer. Garner v. Stone, #97A-30250-1 (DeKalb Co. Ga.). [2000 FP 44]
     Federal appeals court rejects a "dangerous patient" exception to the patient -- psychotherapist privilege. A federal worker informed his therapist of his desire to kill his superior. U.S. v. Hayes, #98-6623, 227 F.3d 578, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 23197, 2000 FED App. 0320P (6th Cir., 2000); reh. den. 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 34097. {N/R}
     New Jersey appellate court holds that a psychologist can be liable for breach of the psychotherapist-patient privilege, if the psychologist testifies against a former patient at a judicial hearing. Runyon v. Smith, 730 A.2d 881 (N.J. App. 1999). {N/R}
     Supreme Court now allows a psychotherapist-patient communications privilege. It was erroneous for the District Court to apply sanctions in a police shooting case when the officer refused to let the jury learn the contents of her counseling interviews. Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 1996 U.S. Lexis 3879, 116 S.Ct. 1923. [1996 FP 139]
     A sheriff who was required by an arbitrator to reinstate a deputy was not required to ignore the misconduct which led to disciplinary action. "The sheriff may require [the deputy] to (a) seek medical and psychological help for the bias and hostile attitude he harbors toward... citizens and the sheriff's dept. administration and (b) obtain certification of [his] fitness for duty prior to his return from suspension." If fit, the sheriff is bound to reinstate the grievant. Brown Co. Sheriff's Dept. v. BCSD Employees Assn., 533 N.W.2d 766 (Wis. 1995). [1996 FP 35]
     Connecticut supreme court upholds a jury finding that a psychiatrist's office wrongfully disclosed to the chief, the content of a fire captain's counseling sessions. No damages should be awarded, because no compensable injury was shown. Skrzypiec v. Noonan, 228 Conn. 1, 633 A.2d 716 (1993). [1994 FP 173]
     Mich. Empl. Rel. Cmsn. holds that the implementation of mandatory psychological counseling without first resorting to the bargaining process is an unfair labor practice. Co. of Allegan Sheriff Dept., 1992 MERC Lab. Op. 134. {N/R}
     Employer not required to pay for employee's psychological counseling when visits were not authorized and employee did not notify employer of planned treatments. Transco Energy Co. v. Tyson, 497 So.2d 184 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986).
     City required to "meet and confer" with the union over a change in psychological counseling; the union waived the right to enforce a bargaining session by its delay. Stockton P.O.A. v. Stockton, 13 PERC (LRP) ¶ 20,021, 1988 PERC (LRP) Lexis 201 (Cal.App. 1988). {N/R}