Jerry Expose, Jr. v. Thad Wilderson & Associates, P.A., Nina Mattson, 889 N.W.2d 279

Jerry Expose Jr. underwent court-ordered anger-management therapy at a clinic after a terroristic-threat conviction; Nina Mattson, an unlicensed intern-therapist, treated him.
During an October 10, 2012 session Expose made threats against a child-protection caseworker; Mattson reported the threats to her supervisor, law enforcement, and the caseworker.
Mattson later met with prosecutors and provided statements and a copy of her session notes; she also testified at Expose’s criminal trial. His conviction was reversed on therapist-client privilege grounds in a prior decision.
Expose sued Mattson and the clinic under the Minnesota Health Records Act, for invasion of privacy, negligent supervision, and vicarious liability; defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings asserting statutory immunity, absolute privilege, and that Expose consented.
The district court dismissed; the court of appeals reversed in part, holding section 148.975 does not immunize an unlicensed intern, absolute privilege did not cover pretrial disclosures, and the clinic’s client-rights form did not constitute valid consent under the Health Records Act.
The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals: (1) section 148.975 immunity does not apply to unlicensed interns; (2) absolute privilege does not protect pretrial disclosures to police or prosecutors; and (3) the client-rights form was not valid written consent under the Health Records Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Minn. Stat. § 148.975 (duty-to-warn / immunity) apply to an unlicensed intern-therapist?	Expose: statute applies only to licensees; intern is not covered.	Mattson: optional-disclosure and duty-to-warn policies entitle her to immunity; agency of a licensee extends immunity.	Held: Statute applies only to defined "licensees." An unlicensed intern is not covered and agency does not expand immunity.
Does the absolute privilege doctrine shield pretrial disclosures to police and prosecutors?	Expose: therapist-client privilege and public policy weigh against absolute privilege for pretrial disclosures.	Mattson/clinic: disclosures related to prosecution and litigation are privileged to encourage full disclosure.	Held: Absolute privilege does not extend to voluntary pretrial disclosures to police or prosecutors; trial testimony remains protected.
Did Mattson violate the Minnesota Health Records Act by disclosing treatment information pretrial?	Expose: disclosures were unauthorized and therefore violated Minn. Stat. §§ 144.291-.298.	Mattson: client-rights form and implied consent permitted disclosure.	Held: The client-rights form was only a notice, not a signed, specific consent as required by §144.293; disclosures violated the Health Records Act.

State v. Expose, 872 N.W.2d 252 (Minn. 2015) (interpreting therapist-client privilege and duty-to-warn statute)
Mahoney & Hagberg v. Newgard, 729 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 2007) (elements and limits of absolute privilege)
Zutz v. Nelson, 788 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. 2010) (narrow application of absolute privilege)
Bol v. Cole, 561 N.W.2d 143 (Minn. 1997) (declining to extend absolute privilege to psychologist disclosures)
Matthis v. Kennedy, 67 N.W.2d 413 (Minn. 1954) (foundational discussion of relevance for absolute privilege)