Weisbeck v. Hess

I concur with Justice Henderson as to Issue I and concur in result as to Issue II.

The crux of Issue II is the proper interpretation “of SDCL 36-26-30(2). I depart from Justice Henderson’s opinion, because I believe that this statutory provision allows for some narrow discovery regarding communications between Hess and his social worker.

In November 1986, Weisbeek’s wife, Cindy, began counseling with Hess. In June 1987, she began treatment with other counselors at Hess’s clinic and reportedly did not receive any professional counseling from Hess after June 1987. Hess maintains that he did not…