There is no Physician-Patient Privilege in a proceeding to commit the patient or otherwise place him or his property, or both, under the control of another because of his alleged mental or physical condition. (No privilege in a mental illness trial to prevent the introduction of testimony of doctors who have been appointed by the court, 35 Op.Atty.Gen. 226 (1960).)
There is no physician-patient privilege regarding information that the physician or patient is required to report to a public employee or information recorded in a public office, if the report is open to public inspection
There is no physician-patient privilege in proceedings brought by a public entity to determine whether a right, authority, license or privilege should be revoked, suspended, terminated, limited, or conditioned.
The provision defines the "patient" in the psychotherapist-patient privilege as not only a person seeking treatment, but also as someone permitting examination of his mental or emotional condition for the purpose of scientific research on mental or emotional problems, thereby potentially invoking the privilege to protect research communications. Evidence Code 1012, defining "confidential communications" partly undercuts this, however, as patient must consider, subjectively, that no one else will be apprised of the psychotherapist-patient communication.
A psychotherapist who received or made a confidential communications that is subject to privilege, must claim the privilege if she is present when the communication is sought to be disclosed.
There is no psychotherapist-patient privilege when the patient has brought the issue concerning the mental health of the patient into question in a proceeding.
There is no privilege if the services of a psychotherapist were obtained to commit a crime or tort or evade detention after committing a crime or tort.
