Ryan v. Ruize – Pa. Super. – 12-14-21 – reported, precedential decision
https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-S21002-21o%20-%20104984205154548011.pdf?cb=1
Held: In PFA case, trial court properly permitted fact testimony of the parties’ therapist concerning husband’s statements to her, during counseling session, that if he killed mother with a gun at their home, it would look like an accident.
The court held that
- Psychiatrist/psychologist privilege under 42 Pa. C.S. 5944 did not apply, by definition, to the therapist, who was not part of a treatment team that included a psychiatrist or psychologist, Farrell v. Regola, 150 A.3d 87 (Pa. Super. 2016); Commonwealth v. Simmons, 719 A.2d 336, 343 (Pa. Super. 1998) (counselor’s title not dispositive)
- Privilege under 42 Pa. C.S. 5948 for confidential communications to a “qualified professional” in divorce or custody cases did not apply to PFA cases.
- ++++++++++++++++++
This case is also reported in the PLAN Legal Update, which you can access and search without a password.
