Gillespie v. Gillespie

631 S.W.2d 592, 1982 Tex. App. LEXIS 4317

Opinions

DIES, Chief Justice.

The sole question involved in this divorce case is whether the physician’s findings concerning treatment for alcoholism, as contained in hospital records, were admissible in evidence. Husband (appellee) filed suit for divorce, division of community property, and custody of a minor. At the trial, he introduced hospital records showing his wife (appellant) had received treatment for alcoholism, to which wife (appellant) objected. These records were admitted in evidence, which brings this appeal from wife.

Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5561h, § 2 (Supp.1982) provides:

“(a) Communication between a patient/client and a professional

Footnotes

•

* is confidential and shall not be disclosed except as provided in Section 4 of this Act.

“(b) Records of the identity, diagnosis, evaluation, or treatment of a patient/client which are created or maintained by a professional are confidential, and shall not be disclosed except as provided in Section 4 of this Act. ...” etc.

Section 1(b) of the statute specifically includes alcoholism, and none of the exceptions detailed in Section 4 apply to this case. There have been no cases construing this statute to the custody of a minor situation; but this statute is clear, and we must construe it as written. See Government Personnel Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Wear, 151 Tex. 454, 251 S.W.2d 525 (1952); Calvert v. Electro-Science Investors, Inc., 509 S.W.2d 700 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1974, no writ); Salas v. State, 592 S.W.2d 653, 656 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1979, no writ). The court erred in admitting these medical records. Appellant’s sole point of error is sustained, and this case is reversed and remanded for a new trial.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

These records contain many such communications to a “professional” defined in Section 1 of the statute.