Torres Friedenberg v. Friedenberg (Slip Opinion)
161 N.E.3d 546
Ohio2020Background
- Belinda Torres Friedenberg filed for divorce in 2016 seeking child custody and spousal support.
- Her husband, Keith Friedenberg, subpoenaed Belinda’s mental-health records from treating providers.
- The magistrate reviewed the records in camera, found some documents relevant, and ordered their release to counsel under a protective order; the trial judge affirmed.
- Belinda appealed, arguing the physician-patient privilege should shield records that do not relate to her ability to parent or to earn.
- A divided Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the release; the Ohio Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a divorce action is a "civil action" that can trigger R.C. 2317.02(B)(1)(a)(iii) | Belinda did not dispute the characterization but argued triggering the exception should not result in unconditional disclosure of records | Keith: a divorce (with custody/spousal-support claims) is a civil action that triggers the exception | Held: Divorce is a civil action for purposes of R.C. 2317.02(B)(1)(a)(iii); the statutory exception can be triggered by filing for divorce/custody/support |
| Whether seeking custody or spousal support places the party’s mental/physical condition at issue such that physician-patient communications lose protection | Belinda: Seeking custody/support does not abrogate privilege when records do not relate to parenting ability or earning capacity | Keith: Filing custody/support claims makes the parties’ mental and physical health mandatory considerations and thus related records are discoverable | Held: Filing custody and/or spousal-support claims makes mental/physical condition a statutorily required consideration, so communications causally or historically related to physical/mental injuries relevant to those claims are discoverable |
| Scope and procedure for disclosure — must courts limit disclosure to communications "related causally or historically" and use in camera review? | Belinda: Court must limit disclosure to communications that satisfy the statutory two-part requirement and identify nonqualifying records | Keith: In camera review was performed and relevant records may be released under protective order | Held: The statutory limitation (disclosure only as to communications causally/historically related to physical/mental injuries relevant to issues) controls; trial court properly conducted in camera review and released records subject to protective order; absent record showing nonqualifying records were released, appellate courts affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) (psychotherapy communications require confidentiality for effective treatment)
- State Med. Bd. v. Miller, 44 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (recognizes purpose of physician-patient privilege and its statutory nature)
- Ward v. Summa Health Sys., 128 Ohio St.3d 212 (2010) (privilege construed strictly; privilege issues reviewed de novo)
- Leopold v. Ace Doran Hauling & Rigging Co., 136 Ohio St.3d 257 (2013) (filing a civil action by the patient triggers exception but testimony limited to communications causally or historically related to relevant injuries)
- Hageman v. Southwest Gen. Health Ctr., 119 Ohio St.3d 185 (2008) (recognizes waiver of privilege in underlying divorce action when custody counterclaim filed)
- Roe v. Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, 122 Ohio St.3d 399 (2009) (review of privilege-exception application is de novo)
- Peyko v. Frederick, 25 Ohio St.3d 164 (1986) (in camera inspection appropriate to determine privilege scope under related statutes)
- Neftzer v. Neftzer, 140 Ohio App.3d 618 (2000) (trial court should conduct in camera review to determine which medical records are causally/historically related and thus discoverable)