Clark v. District Court, Second Judicial District, City & County of Denver

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the privilege holder did not place his mental condition at issue because he did not assert his mental problems as the basis for a claim or defense
• holding that the privilege holder did not place his mental condition at issue because he did not assert his mental problems as the basis for a claim or defense
• noting that when the privilege holder pleads a mental condition as an affirmative defense, “the only reasonable conclusion is that he thereby impliedly waives any claim of confidentiality respecting that same condition”
• injection of a privilege-holder’s mental condition into proceedings as a basis of a claim or affirmative defense waives the privilege with respect to communications with professionals concerning such condition
• mental health and associated alcohol and drug abuse treatment records are privileged under the physician-patient and psychologist-client privileges
• “A waiver must be supported by evidence showing that the privilege holder, by words or conduct, has expressly or impliedly forsaken his claim of confidentiality with respect to the information in question.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).