ESTES v. PIERACCINI

A man named Jameson Estes tried to keep certain communications out of evidence by claiming the psychiatrist-patient privilege, arguing he qualified as a psychiatrist under Georgia's Evidence Code. The trial court and the Court of Appeals of Georgia disagreed, applying a 1994 Supreme Court of Georgia decision, Wiles v. Wiles, which defines 'psychiatrist' as anyone licensed to practice medicine who spends a substantial portion of their time diagnosing and treating mental or emotional conditions, leaving it to trial judges to decide what counts as 'substantial.' Estes asked the Supreme Court of Georgia to review that ruling and reconsider the Wiles definition. The court denied his petition for certiorari, meaning it chose not to take up the case. Justice Bethel wrote separately to agree with denying review, but to say that any change to how 'psychiatrist' is defined for privilege purposes should come from the General Assembly, not the courts.

The court denied certiorari, leaving intact the Court of Appeals' application of Wiles v. Wiles, under which 'psychiatrist' for privilege purposes means anyone licensed to practice medicine who devotes a substantial portion of their time to diagnosing and treating mental or emotional conditions, a standard the trial court applies at its discretion.

Mental health providers, patients, and lawyers across Georgia will keep relying on the flexible Wiles test to decide who can claim the psychiatrist-patient privilege, with trial judges retaining discretion over what counts as a 'substantial portion' of a provider's time treating mental health conditions.

Petition for certiorari denied

1. The court's Evidence Code excludes 'communications between psychiatrist and patient' from evidence as a matter of public policy (OCGA § 24-5-501 (a) (5)), but the statute itself does not define who counts as a 'psychiatrist.'
2. That definition instead comes from the Supreme Court of Georgia's 1994 decision in Wiles v. Wiles, which rejected limiting 'psychiatrist' to medical doctors specially trained in psychiatry and instead defined it as any licensed physician who spends a substantial portion of their time diagnosing and treating mental or emotional conditions.
3. Because Wiles left it to trial judges to decide case by case what counts as a 'substantial portion' of a doctor's time, the trial court and the Court of Appeals of Georgia applied that discretionary standard here and found Estes did not qualify as a psychiatrist under it.
4. Estes asked the Supreme Court of Georgia to revisit and narrow the Wiles standard based on policy arguments, but Justice Bethel reasoned that such policy judgments about how broadly to protect mental health communications are better made by the General Assembly, Georgia's legislature, than reshaped further through court decisions.
5. Concluding that the courts should not keep adjusting the privilege's scope through case law, the court denied review, leaving the existing Wiles framework in place for lower courts to keep applying.

• psychiatrist-patient privilege
• certiorari denial
• mental health evidence law
• Wiles v. Wiles