Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
Interesting article. Maybe we really are progressing.
http://tinyurl.com/nq6zy6u
http://tinyurl.com/nq6zy6u
This is great news!
Here try the mobile version too.
Joel Stashenko
05/07/2015
ALBANY - A psychiatrist's testimony about a patient's admissions to having sexually abused a young relative was an impermissible breach of physician-patient confidentiality, the Court of Appeals ruled in ordering a new trial for the defendant.
The judges determined 6-0 that the doctor's statements in court did not fall under any of the recognized exceptions to physician-patient privilege under CPLR 4504[a], and that by allowing the testimony to stand, the court would be usurping the Legislature's authority to set those exceptions.
The court rejected the contention of Manhattan prosecutors that since the psychiatrist was bound to report defendant David Rivera's statements about committing abuse to the New York City Administration for Children's Services, Rivera could not "reasonably" expect the statements to remain confidential in the context of a criminal prosecution.
"It is one thing to allow the introduction of statements or admissions in child protection proceedings, whose aim is the protection of children, and quite another to allow the introduction of those same statements, through a defendant's psychiatrist, at a criminal proceeding, where the People seek to punish the defendant and potentially deprive him of his liberty," Judge Eugene Pigott Jr. wrote in People v. Rivera, 20.
Pigott noted that evidentiary standards are "necessarily" lower in child protective proceedings than in criminal ones because the interests involved are different.
"Thus, the relaxed evidentiary standards in child protective proceedings lend no credence to the People's argument that defendant should have known that any admission of abuse he made to his psychiatrist would not be kept confidential," he wrote.
He added that the Legislature has not created an express exception to physician-patient privilege to cover admissions made to doctors during the diagnostic and treatment processes.
"Even if a patient is cognizant of his psychiatrist's reporting obligations under child protection statutes, that does not mean that he should have any expectation that statements made during treatment will be used against him in a criminal matter," he said.
The court also rejected the prosecution's argument that the psychiatrist's testimony about Rivera's statements was harmless. "Apart from the victim's testimony, there was no eyewitness evidence to the abuse, and there was little, if any, physical evidence establishing it," Pigott wrote.
He noted that the jury's only request during deliberations was to rehear the psychiatrist's response when asked if Rivera admitted to sexually molesting the child.
Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and Judges Susan Phillips Read, Jenny Rivera, Leslie Stein and Eugene Fahey joined in the ruling. Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam took no part.
The ruling affirmed a finding by an Appellate Division, First Department, panel in People v. Rivera, 99 AD3d 535, reversing Rivera's 2010 conviction in Manhattan Supreme Court for predatory sexual assault against a child. The panel ordered a new trial for Rivera, who had been serving a 13-year sentence.
In reasoning that was also adopted by the Court of Appeals, the First Department said the required reporting by Dr. Anna Gross did not operate as a waiver of the physician-patient privilege for purposes of her testimony in Rivera's criminal trial.
According to the ruling, Rivera admitted in 2007 to Gross in the psychiatric ward of Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center to having been unable to stop sexually abusing an 11-year-old niece.
Gross reported Rivera's statements to the Administration for Children's Services. At about the same time, the girl recounted the abuse to her pediatrician. The pediatrician also reported the alleged abuse to the agency, the court said.
Released after about a month at Columbia Presbyterian, Rivera was arrested and charged with sexual assault.
The trial judge, Acting Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Robert Stolz, ruled that while Gross could not recount the "full extent of defendant's admissions," she could say under oath that Rivera had admitted to committing the abuse because the psychiatrist had reported it to children's services.
Assistant Manhattan District Attorney David Stromes argued for the prosecution.
Lloyd Epstein, a partner at Epstein & Weil who represented Rivera, said the court's ruling was important in that it acknowledged the benefits to society when people with serious health problems seek proper medical treatment.
"The Court of Appeals recognized that people should be encouraged to do so, and that their honesty in recognizing their problems will not result in a criminal prosecution," he said in an interview Wednesday.
The Manhattan District Attorney's Office declined to comment on the decision.
they want to prevent or stop what is going on. WHY in hells name would anyone seek help of any kind if they have to fear repercussions because of that seeking?