Freedom of Information Officer, Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Services v. Freedom of Information Commission

Summary

The concurrence in part and dissent in part would have required a document-by-document application of the psychiatrist-patient privilege rather than treating every record created at an inpatient psychiatric facility as privileged. It would have upheld disclosure of records unrelated to psychiatric diagnosis or treatment, reconsidered medical and dental records based on evidence of their relationship to psychiatric care, and rejected the personal-privacy exemption. The opinion also concludes that the privilege does not categorically bar disclosure of records identifying a patient when that patient's psychiatric status is already public.