Legal Opinion

In re Wieland

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 6, 2000No. 99-1586PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAlice Robie Resnick, J.

Under the juvenile court’s order of January 29, 1999, appellee is precluded from invoking the physician-patient privilege because she did not voluntarily undergo treatment. However, as aptly noted by the court of appeals, the record in this case does not reveal whether the testimony and records that appellant seeks to obtain regarding appellee’s treatment at CADAS concern communications received by physicians, licensed psychologists, licensed counselors, and/or licensed social workers. Thus, in the interest of judicial economy, and because all of these providers are governed by similar…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. SmorgalaOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. In re MillerOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  3. State v. McDermottOhio Supreme Court · 1995

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Jackson v. GregerOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  2. In the Interest of A.M., Minor Child. Heather Thomas, Subpoenaed WitnessSupreme Court of Iowa · 2014
  3. State ex rel. E. Cleveland Fire Fighters' Assn., Local 500, IAFF v. JenkinsOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Skorvanek v. Dept. of Rehab & Corr.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2018
  5. Frash v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2016

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API