Jaffe V. Redmond Case Study

[The case of Jaffe v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996), was a landmark case for patient privilege that was heard by the Supreme Court in 1996. The case brought up the issue of client privilege and whether a social worker and client’s relationship should be protected. The Supreme Court found in favor of Redmond in the case however, Justice Scalia dissented in the case. In this research his dissent will be explored and an argument for protection of the relationship between a social worker and their client will be made.
[For the purpose of explaining the Supreme Court decision the case will be briefly explained. In June 1991, Mary Redmond was a police officer in Illinois that responded to a call of a fight at an apartment complex (Beyer, 2000). Redmond arrived to find Ricky Allen chasing another man and wielding a butcher knife (Beyer, 2000). Redmond repeatedly ordered Allen to drop the knife, but Allen did not comply (Beyer, 2000). It appeared that Allen was going to stab the man he was chasing, so Redmond shot Allen (Beyer, 2000). He succumbed to his wound and died at the scene (Beyer, 2000).
[Ricky Allen’s mother, Mrs. Jaffe,

filed a suit against Redmond claiming excessive force in Allen’s death (Beyer, 2000). Mrs. Jaffe’s attorney discovered during the trial, that Redmond had sought out therapy from the EAP at her agency following the incident (Beyer, 2000). In light of this information Jaffe’s attorney subpoenaed the records from her therapist Karen Beyer (Beyer, 2000). The therapist refused to comply with the subpoena, even though she was advised by attorneys to do so (Beyer, 2000). The Federal Judge instructed the jury that they could consider the fact that Beyer refused to turn over the records as an indication that the records would be detrimental to Redmond’s case (Beyer, 2000). The jury found in favor of the Jaffees.
[Redmond’s case was appealed and the Circuit Court of Appeals, vacated the decision (Beyer, 2000). In its opinion, the privilege Beyer had tried to apply in the first case should have been applied by the court (Beyer, 2000). Again, the case was appealed, this time by the Jaffee’s, it was accepted by the Supreme Court of the United States (Beyer, 2000). The court heard the case and in the opinion that was decided in June 1996 the Court found that the privilege of psychotherapist-client, was similar to the attorney-client and the spousal privileges, and reflected society’s desire to have certain relationships protected based on trust and confidence (Beyer, 2000). However, the dissent by Justice Scalia was based mainly on the idea that psychotherapist-client privilege was not significant enough to warrant protection.
[In Justice Scalia’s dissent, two of the most important points he made were first; that the importance of psychotherapy is not significant enough to warrant the court excluding important evidence to protect privilege (Cornell, 1996).

Secondly, that psychotherapists do not differ from the rest of society, federal privilege was not necessary due to the state laws that already exist to cover the psychotherapy privilege (Cornell, 1996). Moreover, Justice Scalia was known to adhere to the letter of the Constitution, the fact that the majority decision was creating a ruling when Congress had declined to do so was cause for his dissent. As was the skill level of social workers and their professionalism (Cornell, 1996). In spite of the Justice’s opinion there are many people who feel that the psychotherapy relationship is one that deserves

protection.
[In contrast, to Scalia’s dissent the relationship between therapists, psychotherapists, social workers and counselors is a valuable affiliation. Practitioners use trust and confidence as a hallmark of their work with their client’s, this trust allows client’s to open up and share their deepest darkest secrets, feelings, and emotions with another human being. Therefore, the delicate nature of the information that client’s share with their practitioners could not be shared with others except in situations where it would prevent harm. If this relationship was compromised, individuals would have nowhere to go to seek help and support for struggles that they were enduring.
[Additionally, if there were no rights of confidentiality the fear of disclosure of private information would prevent people from pursuing treatment for mental illness, trauma, substance abuse, and other intimate problems. The fact that people can count on a confidentiality from their provider is essential to good practice. In addition, the practice of human service workers especially those of social workers, therapists, and counselors has become more professionalized over the last twenty years. The educational requirements have become more stringent and licensure is now required in most states. There are tests required to practice, continuing education credits required yearly for continued licensure, ethics boards, and professional boards. All of these requirements are an effort to keep strict professionalism for providers. So that the most appropriate and valuable treatment is dispensed to those who seek it.
[In conclusion, in this case the Supreme Court found that the relationship between citizens who are seeking treatment and their provider is not only valuable but worth protecting for everyone in this country. The human services worker provides an important service to individuals who need help to overcome difficult situations, and manage mental health conditions that without support may become unmanageable. The society as a whole benefits from these interactions because they improve the functioning of people and nothing is lost by protecting that privilege.