In re T.B.
75 A.3d 485
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- T.B., adjudicated delinquent as a juvenile for multiple sexually violent offenses, remained in institutional care and received mental-health treatment; he turned 20 in 2011.
- Under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6358 (Act 21), the State Sexual Offenders Assessment Board (SOAB) obtained T.B.’s juvenile court file (including mental-health treatment records) via the probation department to assess whether he should be civilly committed as a sexually violent predator (SVP).
- The SOAB assessor relied on treatment records and quoted disclosures T.B. made to psychiatrists/psychologists in her report; the trial court denied T.B.’s motion to strike the assessment and to require a new assessment excluding privileged materials.
- Following an SVP hearing that used the SOAB report and treatment disclosures, the trial court found T.B. an SVP and ordered civil commitment to Torrance State Hospital on March 1, 2012.
- T.B. appealed (two docket entries consolidated): he argued the psychotherapist‑patient privilege (42 Pa.C.S. § 5944) barred disclosure of treatment communications to the SOAB and that the SOAB’s reliance on those communications required striking or vacating the assessment and commitment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (T.B.) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile statements to psychiatrists/psychologists in treatment are protected by the psychotherapist‑patient privilege from disclosure to the SOAB | Statements made during treatment are privileged under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5944 and require written consent to disclose; SOAB access violated that privilege | Act 21 authorizes the SOAB to obtain the juvenile probation file (including treatment records) and supersedes Carter; Act 21’s non‑punitive remedial purpose justifies disclosure | Privileged treatment communications remain protected; SOAB access is subject to the psychotherapist‑patient privilege and disclosure requires the juvenile’s written consent unless privilege does not apply based on purpose of the record |
| Whether Carter v. Commonwealth is displaced by Act 21 | Carter supports limiting SOAB access to privileged treatment records; it remains controlling | Act 21, enacted after Carter, implicitly supersedes Carter by granting broad SOAB access | Carter remains applicable; Act 21 did not repeal or displace the privilege and Carter’s approach governs harmonization |
| Whether the appeal of an order allowing SOAB use of privileged material is immediately appealable | Overruling a claim of privilege is collateral and immediately appealable under Pa.R.A.P. 313 | Motion to quash as interlocutory or moot because proceedings later concluded | Order denying motion to strike was a collateral order and appealable; motion to quash denied; appeal not moot under public‑importance/ capable‑of‑repetition‑yet‑evading‑review exception |
| Remedy if records were prepared for treatment and juvenile lacked counsel/privilege warnings | If disclosures were made during treatment and the juvenile was not represented/informed of self‑incrimination rights, the SOAB materials should be excluded and a new assessment may be required | SOAB assessment and commitment proceedings may proceed using the records | Court vacated trial court orders and remanded for factual findings whether materials were created for treatment; if so and privilege improperly waived or uninformed, SOAB determination must be vacated and re‑assessment without the privileged records may be required |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 32 A.3d 243 (Pa. 2011) (orders overruling claims of privilege may be immediately appealable as collateral orders)
- Commonwealth v. Carter, 821 A.2d 601 (Pa. Super. 2003) (SOAB access to juvenile records is subject to psychotherapist‑patient privilege; determine whether records were created for treatment)
- In re Petition to Compel Cooperation with Child Abuse Investigation, 875 A.2d 365 (Pa. Super. 2005) (public‑importance and capable‑of‑repetition‑yet‑evading‑review exception to mootness)
- Gormley v. Edgar, 995 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2010) (policy and scope of psychotherapist‑patient privilege protect treatment disclosures)
- In re Subpoena No. 22, 709 A.2d 385 (Pa. Super. 1998) (burden shifts to party seeking disclosure once privilege properly invoked)
- Commonwealth v. Appleby, 856 A.2d 191 (Pa. Super. 2004) (discussing importance and effect of psychotherapist‑patient privilege)
- Commonwealth v. Willson Products, Inc., 194 A.2d 162 (Pa. 1963) (legislative silence after judicial interpretation suggests legislature acquiesced to that interpretation)