The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the trial court’s order, which granted in part a motion to compel production of mental health records and ordered the Zirillis to provide unredacted copies of the documents for in camera review by a special master for a privilege determination. The Zirillis filed a negligence action. According to the Zirillis, Ms. Tavella-Zirilli suffered injuries after receiving a hair color treatment at a salon. During discovery, the Zirillis objected to producing Ms. Tavella-Zirilli’s mental health records, arguing they were privileged and protected from disclosure by the Mental Health Procedures Act (“MHPA”) and/or the psychiatrist/psychologist-patient privilege. The trial court ordered an in camera review of the records. The Zirillis appealed, and the Superior Court reversed. First, the Court ruled that the records were outside the scope of the MHPA. Second, records of the opinions, observations, diagnoses, or treatment alternatives of Ms. Tavella-Zirilli’s treatment provider(s) that did not report Ms. Tavella-Zirilli’s communications were not protected by the psychiatrist/psychologist-patient privilege. However, the trial court erred and abused its discretion because the court ordered disclosure of records containing communications made by Ms. Tavella-Zirilli during her treatment, “despite such records falling squarely within the parameters of the psychiatrist/psychologist-patient privilege”. Lastly, Ms. Tavella-Zirilli did not waive the psychiatrist/psychologist-patient privilege by commencing this suit.
