Mississippi State Board of Psychological Examiners v. Hosford
Mississippi Supreme Court
508 So. 2d 1049 (1987)
- Written by Nicole Gray , JD
Facts
Robert L. Hosford (defendant) held a license to practice psychology in Mississippi, which was issued by the Mississippi State Board of Psychological Examiners (plaintiff). In 1985, Hosford was disciplined by final decision of the board for disclosing psychologist-patient information by submitting an affidavit in support of a husband’s custody efforts, disclosing information obtained from sessions held with the wife separately and with the pair as a couple. The board found that Hosford had violated Principle 5 of the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists, which prohibits psychologists from disclosing confidential psychologist-patient information without the patient’s consent or unless the psychologist is presented with a matter of clear danger to the psychologist or others. Hosford argued that the disclosure was made because of the clear danger to the child whose custody was contested by his patients. The board rejected Hosford’s argument after finding that the clear-danger exception only applied in situations of life and death. The board ordered that Hosford be suspended for 90 days. Hosford sought judicial review of the board’s decision in a state chancery court. The chancery court reversed the board’s decision, and the board appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Robertson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
