I completely respect the societal need to protect certain privileges and protect the sanctity of certain relationships, but the recent Appellate Division, Second Department decision in Cheek v. County of Nassau really struck me as odd. The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court's denial of the defendant's motion to direct the plaintiff to provide authorizations for psychiatric records.
The plaintiff was injured when she was struck by an automobile that one of the defendants was driving on Sunrise Highway. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff was in the middle of Sunrise Highway, came out of nowhere, and was wearing black clothes on a rainy, foggy, and dark day. The defendants' theory was that the plaintiff's actions were part of a suicide attempt.
If any one has ever had the pleasure of driving on the Sunrise Highway, you know that it is not the type of place where you would expect pedestrians wandering onto the highway. The facts and circumstances of this case strongly infer that the plaintiff's mental health might have contributed to the accident (Is this an issue for cross-examination?). However, given that the plaintiff did not seek damages for injuries to her mental health, the Court held that her mental health was not at issue. The Court cited to a case that had vastly different facts than this appeal -- i.e., a defendant seeking psychiatric records for a a plaintiff attempting to recover damages for injuries arising from dental malpractice.
Comments