Scull v. Superior Court

206 Cal. App. 3d 784, 254 Cal. Rptr. 24, 1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 1167
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedDecember 16, 1988
DocketB035045
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 206 Cal. App. 3d 784 (Scull v. Superior Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Scull v. Superior Court, 206 Cal. App. 3d 784, 254 Cal. Rptr. 24, 1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 1167 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

Opinion

STONE (S. J.), P. J.

Alvis Joe Scull (hereafter referred to as petitioner) seeks relief by way of a writ of mandate to compel respondent superior court to set aside its order allowing representatives of the district attorney’s office to contact petitioner’s former patients. We find that the respondent *787 superior court order violated the psychotherapist-patient privilege (Evid. Code, § 1010 et seq.) and shall grant the petition.

Facts

On March 28, 1988, petitioner was arrested and charged with four counts of sexually molesting a teenaged patient. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).) Petitioner, aged 71, had retired from the practice of psychiatry and maintained his patient records in his residence.

Immediately following petitioner’s arrest, the Sheriff of Santa Barbara County issued a press release which included details of the charges against petitioner and requested people who might have information concerning any offenses committed by petitioner upon any of his other patients to contact the authorities. Local newspapers, television and radio stations broadcasted the press release. Shortly thereafter, six former patients came forward to give varying accounts to the authorities of having been sexually molested during the course of treatment as teenaged patients of petitioner. In addition, the foster parent of another patient told the police that her child had been molested by petitioner while under his care.

On May 16, 1988, a search warrant was served upon petitioner’s residence. Information concerning petitioner’s patients was seized and placed in possession of a special master. (Pen. Code, § 1524.)

On June 1, 1988, the district attorney moved to have the names, telephone numbers, and addresses of petitioner’s female patients, for the past 10 years, released to him. He sought this information in order to contact the patients and determine whether any of them had been sexually abused or molested during treatment sessions.

On June 6, 1988, over petitioner’s objection founded upon the psychotherapist-patient privilege, the court conditionally granted the district attorney’s motion. The special master was ordered to make a list of the names, ages, addresses, and telephone numbers of all female patients of Doctor Scull for the past 10 years. In an effort to minimize the intrusion into the privacy of petitioner’s former patients, the court required that a psychologist or psychiatrist be appointed to initiate any contacts. A former patient would be informed, among other things, that: (a) the caller is a psychologist or psychiatrist employed by the district attorney for the purpose of investigating allegations against Doctor Scull of molestation; (b) she has the right to make no statements, as such information is privileged; (c) if she should choose to discuss the matter, such confidential information would be kept *788 from all save Doctor Scull and his attorney; and (d) she may elect to become a witness, and to that extent the information may become public.

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate, He contends that the names, telephone numbers, and addresses of his patients are privileged under Evidence Code section 1014. 1 He asserts that the above rule applies even though a court-appointed therapist will be making the initial contact with the patients and will not, unless instructed otherwise, divulge information obtained.

Discussion

Our society recognizes it to be a denial of a person’s right of privacy to allow the proponent of discovery an unfettered right to conduct an inquisition into a deponent’s innermost confidences. (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 856 [143 Cal.Rptr. 695, 574 P.2d 766].) Thus, there are a number of evidentiary privileges that serve to limit a proponent’s right to full disclosure. (E.g., 2 Hogan, Modern Cal. Discovery (4th ed. 1988) § 12.1 et seq., pp. 54-190.)

One such limitation is contained in Evidence Code section 1014. This measure affords a broad privilege that prevents the disclosure of communications made between a patient and a psychotherapist. The statutory privilege is founded upon the notion that certain forms of antisocial behavior may be prevented by encouraging those in need of treatment for emotional problems to secure the services of a psychotherapist. (In re Lifschutz, supra, 2 Cal.3d at pp. 434-435.) “The patient’s innermost thoughts may be so frightening, embarrassing, shameful or morbid that the patient in therapy will struggle to remain sick, rather than to reveal those thoughts even to himself. The possibility that the psychotherapist could be compelled to reveal those communications to anyone . . . can deter persons from seeking needed treatment and destroy treatment in progress.” (Caesar v. Mountanos (9th Cir. 1976) 542 F.2d 1064, 1072 (dis. opn. of Hufstedler, J.) citing Katz et al., Psychotherapy, Psychoanalysis and the Law (1967) pp. 726-727.)

judicial deference to the patient-psychotherapist privilege also promotes societal weal. “[EJffective treatment reduces the costs of antisocial behavior attributable to mental illness.” (Smith, Constitutional Privacy in Psychother *789 apy (1980) 49 Geo.Wash. L. Rev. 1, 41 (hereafter Privacy in Psychotherapy); see also In re Zuniga (6th Cir. 1983) 714 F.2d 632, 639 [72 A.L.R.Fed. 380].)

It is recognized that a psychotherapist’s capacity to provide effective treatment requires that a patient . . bare his entire self, his dreams, his fantasies, his sins, and his shame. . . .’” (Taylor v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1955) 222 F.2d 398, 401 [95 App.D.C. 373], fn. omitted.) The accurate diagnosis and effective treatment in psychotherapy are greatly dependent upon conditions of trust and confidentiality between patient and therapist. (Fleming & Maximov, The Patient or His Victim: The Therapist’s Dilemma (1974) 62 Cal.L.Rev. 1025, 1040-1041.) “Essential to psychotherapy are confidential personal revelations about matters which the patient is normally reluctant to discuss. Frequently, a patient in analysis will make statements to his psychiatrist which he would not make even to the closest members of his family. (Slovenko, Psychiatry and a Second Look at the Medical Privilege (1960) 6 Wayne L. Rev. 175, 184-185.) Revelations often concern the most intimate and embarrassing details of a patient’s life, and their public exposure may well strip him of much of his own sense of human dignity.” (Lora v. Board of Ed. of City of New York (E.D.N.Y. 1977) 74 F.R.D. 565, 571.)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mathews v. Becerra
7 Cal. App. 5th 334 (California Court of Appeal, 2017)
People v. Rebulloza
California Court of Appeal, 2015
Marriage of Hanna CA4/1
California Court of Appeal, 2014
Akkerman v. MECTA CORP., INC.
62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 39 (California Court of Appeal, 2007)
People v. Felix
112 Cal. Rptr. 2d 311 (California Court of Appeal, 2001)
Sporich v. Superior Court
91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 752 (California Court of Appeal, 2000)
Weisbeck v. Hess
524 N.W.2d 363 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1994)
Harris v. Superior Court
3 Cal. App. 4th 661 (California Court of Appeal, 1992)
People v. Wharton
809 P.2d 290 (California Supreme Court, 1991)
Roe v. Superior Court
229 Cal. App. 3d 832 (California Court of Appeal, 1991)
New York Times Co. v. Superior Court
218 Cal. App. 3d 1579 (California Court of Appeal, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
206 Cal. App. 3d 784, 254 Cal. Rptr. 24, 1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 1167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scull-v-superior-court-calctapp-1988.