Publication Date
7-2006
Document Type
Casenote
Abstract
By holding in State v. Herendeen that a patient could invoke the mental health privilege ("privilege") when the patient either received mental health treatment ("treatment") or such treatment was contemplated during the course of the psychotherapeutic relationship, the Georgia Supreme Court eliminated any remaining vestige of a "voluntariness" requirement for patients seeking to invoke the privilege. In doing so, the court overruled Georgia case law that had required a patient to demonstrate, in addition to a showing that treatment was received or contemplated, that the patient voluntarily sought the treatment. The court's decision clarified the criteria needed to invoke the privilege in Georgia, allowing for a consistent application of the privilege; however, the decision also raises questions regarding the definition of "treatment ... given or contemplated" and the conflict between the interests promoted by the privilege and the probative value of the information protected by the privilege.
Recommended Citation
Husser, John Scott Jr.
(2006)
""I Didn't Volunteer for This @&#%!": The Application of Georgia's Psychologist- Patient Privilege to Court-Ordered Mental Health Treatment,"
Mercer Law Review: Vol. 57:
No.
4, Article 15.
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/jour_mlr/vol57/iss4/15