863 N.W.2d 95
Minn. Ct. App.2015Background
- In 2012 Jerry Expose, Jr. attended anger‑management counseling at Thad Wilderson & Associates; his therapist was Nina Mattson, then an unlicensed intern.
- During an October 10, 2012 session Expose made statements suggesting he might harm a county caseworker; Mattson documented the statements, consulted her supervisor, contacted law enforcement and the caseworker, and later provided notes to police and prosecutors.
- Mattson was subpoenaed and testified at Expose’s criminal trial; the district court overruled Expose’s psychologist‑patient privilege objection, the jury convicted, and this court later found that ruling erroneous (criminal appeal pending to the Minnesota Supreme Court).
- Expose sued Mattson and the clinic under (1) the Minnesota Health Records Act, (2) invasion of privacy (publication of private facts), (3) vicarious liability, and (4) negligent supervision.
- The district court converted defendants’ rule 12 motions into summary‑judgment motions, granted judgment for defendants on multiple grounds (consent, statutory immunity under Minn. Stat. §148.975, absolute privilege, and failure to serve an expert‑review affidavit), and entered dismissal; Expose appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: it rejected consent and statutory immunity/absolute‑privilege defenses for pretrial disclosures, held absolute privilege applied only to compelled trial testimony, and held expert affidavit was not required for the invasion‑of‑privacy claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did Expose consent to disclosure via clinic "Client Rights" form? | Expose: form was a statutory notice, not a valid, specific signed consent for release. | Clinic/Mattson: Expose signed a document that authorized disclosures in listed circumstances (including danger/subpoena). | Court: form did not satisfy statute's required signed, specific consent; genuine issues remain whether disclosures fell within narrow listed exceptions. |
| 2. Does statutory duty‑to‑warn immunity (Minn. Stat. §148.975) protect Mattson? | Expose: immunity limited to "licensees," and Mattson was unlicensed. | Defendants: intern governed by Board rules; immunity should apply. | Court: immunity applies only to licensed psychologists; Mattson (an unlicensed intern) is not covered. |
| 3. Does absolute privilege bar claims for disclosures to police/prosecutors and at trial? | Expose: psychologist‑patient privilege and confidentiality policy counsel against sweeping application of absolute privilege. | Defendants: absolute privilege protects witnesses for statements made in judicial proceedings. | Court: absolute privilege applies to compelled trial testimony (Mattson’s sworn trial testimony) but not to pretrial disclosures to police or prosecutors. |
| 4. Was an expert‑review affidavit required for invasion‑of‑privacy claim? | Expose: expert testimony not necessary; claim depends on ordinary‑fact questions (was confidential info published without consent). | Defendants: professional duties and standards make expert testimony necessary. | Court: affidavit/statute not required; invasion‑of‑privacy elements are within lay knowledge so expert affidavit was unnecessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) (describing psychotherapist‑patient privilege purpose to foster candid treatment communications)
- Mahoney & Hagberg v. Newgard, 729 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 2007) (describing scope and policy basis of absolute privilege and instructing courts to consider competing policy interests)
- Tousignant v. St. Louis County, 615 N.W.2d 53 (Minn. 2000) (expert testimony unnecessary when acts are within general knowledge of lay persons)
- Minnesota State Bar Ass’n v. Divorce Assistance Ass’n, Inc., 248 N.W.2d 733 (Minn. 1976) (witness must obey a court order to answer questions even if order is erroneous)
- State v. Expose, 849 N.W.2d 427 (Minn. App. 2014) (prior appellate decision finding trial court erred in overruling psychologist‑patient privilege objection)