Friedenberg v. Friedenberg
2019 Ohio 325
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Belinda Friedenberg filed for divorce in March 2016 seeking custody and spousal support; husband Keith counterclaimed.
- Keith subpoenaed Belinda’s mental-health and medical records from the Cleveland Psychoanalytic Center; Belinda moved to quash and for a protective order asserting physician–patient privilege.
- Magistrate conducted an in camera review, found records relevant, and ordered preparation of a protective order limiting dissemination to counsel, parties, and experts.
- Trial court concluded Belinda waived physician–patient privilege by placing her mental and physical condition at issue via claims for custody and spousal support, ordered release of records to counsel under a protective order.
- Belinda appealed the release; the appellate majority affirmed, holding statutory provisions and precedent support waiver when custody or spousal support are sought.
- Judge O’Toole dissented, arguing the records were not shown to be relevant to parenting ability or to a health-related claim for spousal support and that releasing all records exceeded the court’s discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether physician–patient privilege bars production of medical/mental-health records in divorce when custody and spousal support are claimed | Belinda: records are private and not relevant; privilege protects them from disclosure | Keith: seeking custody and spousal support places mental/physical health at issue, statute and case law permit disclosure | Court: privilege waived as a matter of law where custody or spousal support are sought; records may be produced under protective order |
| Whether in camera review and protective order were required/adequate safeguards | Belinda: in camera review should limit disclosure to only relevant portions; full release was overbroad | Keith: in camera review was conducted and magistrate properly authorized limited dissemination to counsel/experts under protective order | Court: magistrate performed in camera review, found relevance, and protective order appropriately limited dissemination |
| Standard of review for discovery decision | Belinda: trial court abused discretion by ordering release of confidential records | Keith: trial court acted within broad discretion in discovery matters | Court: applied abuse-of-discretion standard and found no abuse |
| Whether spousal-support claim alone waives privilege absent health/ability-to-work allegations | Belinda: spousal-support claim based on income disparity does not make health relevant | Keith: statutory factors for spousal support include mental condition, so privilege may be waived | Court: statutory duty to consider mental condition in spousal-support determinations supports disclosure; waiver applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Mauzy v. Kelly Servs., Inc., 75 Ohio St.3d 578 (1996) (standard that trial court has broad discretion in discovery matters)
- State v. Ferranto, 112 Ohio St. 667 (1925) (definition and scope of abuse of discretion)
- Neftzer v. Neftzer, 140 Ohio App.3d 618 (12th Dist. 2000) (limits on releasing entire medical records when only portions are relevant)