In Colorado, Are Threatening Statements Protected by Psychologist-Patient Privilege?

5571 darken lighten center w skin softBy Carole C. Schriefer, R.N., J.D., The Health Law Firm

Mental health providers and patients share a sacred bond. But is that sensitive relationship tarnished when a doctor testifies against patients?

That was the question posed to the Colorado Supreme Court in People v. Kailey. The state’s high court had to decide if a patient makes threatening statements during a therapy session, and the doctor reports these statements, can the doctor’s testimony against a patient be used in court?

Click here to read the entire case.

Case Background.

Randy Kailey was serving a 32-year sentence at a correctional facility in Colorado when he met with Brian Willson for a therapy session. Willson was a psychologist candidate working for the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC). During the session, Kailey allegedly spoke threateningly about witnesses who testified against him during his trial. Willson considered these statements to constitute serious threats of violence.

According to Willson’s duty to warn, he submitted an incident report to the Colorado DOC. Based on that report and testimony from Willson, the State of Colorado charged Kailey with retaliation against a witness.

Kailey moved to exclude the doctor’s testimony, contending that Kailey’s statements should be protected by the psychologist-patient privilege. After a hearing, a trial court sided with Kailey, ruling that even after a mental health provider notifies law enforcement about the threatening statements, those statements remain privileged.

Colorado Supreme Court’s Dilemma.

All jurisdictions acknowledge some form of the duty to warn. However, there are disagreements in various jurisdictions over whether mental health providers can testify on threatening statements made by their patients when these statements have already been disclosed.

In the case discussed above, Willson’s testimony was critical to the prosecutor’s case. The suppression of evidence due to the psychologist-patient privilege would have significantly impeded Colorado’s ability to prosecute Kailey.

Colorado Supreme Court Decision.

In the end, the Colorado Supreme Court held that if a mental health provider believes that statements made by a patient during a therapy session threaten imminent physical violence against a specific person, and thus triggering the provider’s legal duty to warn, the patient’s threatening statements are not protected by the psychologist-patient privilege. Consequently, the Colorado Supreme Court held that the trial court erred when it excluded threatening statements made by Kailey to Willson on the grounds that the statements were protected by the psychologist-patient privilege.

FYI on Psychologist-Patient Privilege.

Psychologist-patient privilege is a privilege whereby a person can prevent the disclosure of a confidential communication made in the course of diagnosis or treatment of a mental or emotional condition by or at the direction of a psychologist. The requirements of this privilege are:

1. The communications must be confidential;
2. The therapist must be a licensed psychologists; and
3. The communications must occur in the course of diagnosis or treatment.

Almost all the states in the United States have specific laws on psychologists-patient privilege. The state laws vary with regard to the types of therapy relationships protected and the exceptions recognized. The privilege can be overcome under certain conditions, such as when the examination is ordered by a court. Be sure to consult with your own state for its specific statutes on the psychologist-patient privilege. If you have any question be sure to contact an experienced health law attorney.


Do you agree or disagree with the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling? Please explain your opinion.

Contact A Lawyer Experienced in the Representation of Psychiatrists, Mental Health Counselors, Social Workers, Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists and Other Mental Health Professionals.

We routinely provide deposition coverage to psychiatrists, mental health counselors, social workers, licensed marriage and family therapists and other mental health professionals being deposed in criminal cases, negligence cases, civil cases or disciplinary cases involving other health professionals.

The lawyers of The Health Law Firm are experienced in both formal and informal administrative hearings and in representing psychiatrists, mental health counselors, social workers, licensed marriage and family therapists and other mental health professionals in investigations at the Board of Medicine, Board of Psychology, or the Board of Clinical Social, Marriage and Family, and Mental Health Counseling. Call (970) 416-7456 now or visit our website

About the Author: Carole C. Schriefer is a nurse-attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its regional office is in the Northern Colorado, area. The Health Law Firm, 155 East Boardwalk Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525. Phone: (970) 416-7456.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2014 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s