Photo: Shutterstock

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has held that the Mental Health Procedures Act and the psychotherapist-patient privilege did not prevent the operators of a mental health facility from answering a request for admissions regarding their knowledge of a patient's sex offender status.

In a published March 25 opinion, a three-judge panel of the appeals court affirmed a Philadelphia trial judge's ruling in Pasquini v. Fairmount Behavioral Health System, granting plaintiff Brianna Pasquini's motion to strike objections to requests for admission and requiring defendants Fairmount Behavioral Health System and UHS of Fairmount to either admit or deny whether they knew a fellow patient accused of raping Pasquini was a registered sex offender in January 2016.

Pasquini had alleged that she was raped and assaulted by Montezz Hewlett when they were both patients at the defendants' facility, according to the opinion by Judge Correale Stevens. During discovery, Pasquini served the defendants with a request for admission that they knew Hewlett was a convicted sex offender in January 2016. The defendants objected, however, claiming that the information was privileged because Hewlett was a patient at their facility.

After Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Shelley Robins New sided with Pasquini, the defendants appealed, arguing that they were barred from answering the request for admission under Pennsylvania's psychotherapist-patient privilege and the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act.

But the Superior Court panel, consisting of Stevens and Judges Megan McCarthy King and Victor Stabile, agreed with New's rationale.

In her opinion, New wrote, "Mr. Hewlett's status as a registered sex offender does not qualify as the type of information the MHPA intended to make privileged. In fact, it directly counters the entire purpose of Megan's Law to make the identity of a known sex offender available to the public."

"Appellee is not asking for any information regarding the actual treatment of appellants' patient," New added. "Additionally, [she] did not ask for any private thoughts of Mr. Hewlett that may have been discussed with his psychotherapist or observations or analysis the psychotherapist made in relation to these discussions."

Stevens said the panel reached the same conclusion.

"The information appellee seeks does not require the exposure of confidential communications kept by appellants in Hewlett's treatment record; rather, the request for admission seeks to determine whether appellants had knowledge of an undisputed and publicly available fact— Hewlett's sex offender status," Stevens said. "As appellee notes, '[a] simple "admit" or "deny" sheds no light on when, why, where or from whom the information was (or was not) gleaned. In other words, [appellants'] actual answer to the request reveals nothing beyond their awareness of a publicly-promulgated fact. That is all.'"

Counsel for Pasquini, Joel Feller and Joshua Van Naarden of Ross Feller Casey in Philadelphia, said in a statement, "We are pleased that the Pennsylvania Superior Court has affirmed what was a very reasoned and well thought out opinion by Judge New in this important legal matter. With the appellate court affirming that mental health care providers cannot hide behind a claim of privilege when dealing with the knowledge of a patient's status as a registered sex offender, we now look forward to trial and seeking the justice that our client so desperately deserves."

Counsel for the defendants, Mark Merlini Jr. of Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly in Philadelphia, said in an email, "With regard your request for a comment, we are carefully considering the Superior Court's opinion and obviously disappointed with the decision. We are reviewing our appellate options at this time and will likely be appealing the decision."