ROBERT H. WRAY, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
We affirm the order of the trial court insofar as it held Chapters 120, 455, and 458, Florida Statutes, to be facially constitutional and denied the Motion for Injunction and the Petition for Writ of Prohibition.
We must, however, disagree with the trial court’s determination that the petitioner has waived the privilege afforded by Section 90.503, Florida Statutes (1979). First of all, the privilege at issue, the psychotherapist-patient privilege, inures to the patient, not the psychotherapist, and can be waived only by the patient or someone acting on the patient’s behalf. Section 90.-503(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (1979). Secondly, we agree with the contention of the Department of Professional Regulation that the issue of waiver of the privilege was not ripe in the proceedings before the Circuit Court. There are factual determinations yet to be made before questions as to the applicability of the psychotherapist-patient privilege and as to waiver can be resolved.
Accordingly, the provision in the order finding that petitioner has waived the privilege afforded by Section 90.503, Florida Statutes, is stricken. The order, as amended, is AFFIRMED.
BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Attorney AD Litem FOR D.K. v. The Parents OF D.K., 780 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…90.503(l)(b), Fla.Stat. (2000) (emphasis added). Under the general statutory definitions “[t]he word ‘person’ includes individuals [and] children. ...” § 1.01(3), Fla. Stat. (2000) (emphasis added). In Wray v. Department of Professional Regulation, 410 So. 2d 960, 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), the court held that the psychotherapist/patient pi'ivilege may be waived only by the patient or by someone acting on the patient’s behalf. See also Arias v. Urban, 595 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). We therefore conclude th…
-
Drew v. State, 478 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…ce of each respective term imposed appears to us to violate the well settled rule against split sentences or serving parts of sentences sandwiched between chunks of other sentences. See Segal v. Wainwright, 304 So. 2d 446 (Fla.1974); Oates v. State, 410 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Rozmestor v. State, 381 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Accordingly, we vacate the sentences imposed in these cases and remand for resen-tencing. SENTENCES VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING. DAUKSCH, J., concurs. COWART,…