Farrell, J. v. Regola, R.
150 A.3d 87
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Wrongful-death/survival action by administrator of Louis Farrell, who died from a fatal gunshot; plaintiff alleged Regolas negligently left a loaded handgun accessible to minors, leading to Louis's suicide.
- Defendants (Robert T. Regola III, Janette Regola, and their son) denied key factual allegations and pointed to police/forensic findings and a coroner’s suicide ruling; criminal charges against Robert Regola III ended in acquittal.
- During civil discovery plaintiff sought (1) Janette Regola’s mental-health records from treatment at Kreinbrook Psychological Services and (2) handwritten notes Robert Regola III took at criminal trial and civil depositions.
- Trial court ordered defendants to produce those records for in camera review and indicated it would look for statements about the incident to disclose to plaintiff. Defendants asserted psychologist-patient and attorney-client privileges and appealed.
- Superior Court reviewed de novo whether the statutory psychologist/psychiatrist privilege and the attorney-client privilege protected the withheld materials and whether the order was immediately appealable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immediate appealability of order compelling production for in camera review | Order only directed in camera review; privileges not irreparably lost; not collateral | Order compels disclosure of privileged materials and thus is immediately appealable under Pa.R.A.P. 313 | Appealable as collateral order; privilege orders are immediately reviewable |
| Whether Janette’s Kreinbrook treatment records (including notes by a clinical social worker) are discoverable/in camera reviewable | Records may contain statements about the incident and should be reviewed for relevance | Communications to psychotherapist/treatment team are privileged under 42 Pa.C.S. §5944 and Simmons — not subject to in camera review or disclosure | Records protected; communications to members of treatment team at Kreinbrook are privileged and cannot be produced for in camera review |
| Whether Robert’s handwritten notes (taken at counsel’s direction during criminal trial and civil depositions) are privileged | Notes not privileged because defendant testified he didn’t know why he took them and wouldn’t use them; plaintiff seeks relevant admissions | Notes were made at attorneys’ direction, delivered only to counsel, to secure legal assistance — protected by attorney-client privilege | Notes are protected by attorney-client privilege and need not be produced |
| Trial court’s intent to disclose privileged content to plaintiff | Court intended to extract and provide any relevant statements to plaintiff | Dissemination of privileged content violates absolute privileges | Court’s order reversed; dissemination inappropriate and privileges preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) (federal privilege for psychotherapist communications extends to licensed clinical social workers)
- Ben v. Schwartz, 729 A.2d 547 (Pa. 1999) (orders overruling privilege claims are immediately appealable collateral orders)
- Commonwealth v. Kyle, 533 A.2d 120 (Pa. Super. 1987) (psychotherapist-patient communications protected; in camera review not permitted)
- Yocabet v. UPMC Presbyterian, 119 A.3d 1012 (Pa. Super. 2015) (affirming jurisdiction to hear pretrial appeals of privilege orders)
- Commonwealth v. Simmons, 719 A.2d 336 (Pa. Super. 1998) (communications to members of a treatment team employed by a psychologist are privileged)
- McLaughlin v. Garden Spot Village, 144 A.3d 950 (Pa. Super. 2016) (statutory privilege interpretation is a question of law; de novo review)