In re S.C.

In re S.C. (2000-014); 172 Vt. 530; 768 A.2d 1290

[Filed 26-Feb-2001]


                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2000-014

                             JANUARY TERM, 2001

In re Guardianship of S.C.	       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
    	                               }	Washington Probate Court
                                       }	
                                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. P-63-99 WnG

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


       Appellants Washington County Mental Health Services (WCMH) and Charles
  Boothe sought  to appoint a guardian under 14 V.S.A. § 3063 to care for
  S.C., an allegedly mentally disabled adult.   As S.C.'s case manager, Mr.
  Booth believed S.C. to be unable to make choices about her health  needs,
  and "at risk of serious physical harm."  Pursuant to the statute, S.C. was
  evaluated by a  licensed psychologist whose report to the probate court
  included information obtained from S.C.'s  medical records, and from
  interviews with S.C. and Mr. Boothe.  S.C. did not sign a release 
  permitting access to her medical information, and the probate court
  excluded significant portions of  the evaluation as privileged under V.R.E.
  503.  On appeal, appellants claim that S.C.'s patient  privilege does not
  extend to guardianship proceedings, nor to mental health evaluations
  conducted  pursuant to 14 V.S.A. § 3067.  Appellants also claim that the
  probate court erred in its blanket  exclusion of Mr. Boothe's testimony,
  asserting that not all relevant portions fall within the privilege.

       We decline to consider appellants' claims, as prior to argument before
  this Court, S.C. did in  fact sign a release, waiving her privilege and
  permitting access to her medical records.  As applied to  S.C., therefore,
  these issues are moot. See In re N.H., 168 Vt. 508, 511, 724 A.2d 467, 469
  (1998)  (appeal becomes moot when issues presented are no longer "live" or
  parties lack cognizable interest  in outcome). We note that to the extent
  that the applicability and scope of a patient's privilege in the  context
  of involuntary guardianship proceedings remain unresolved, such evidentiary
  issues are  appropriate for consideration by Vermont's Advisory Committee
  on Rules of Evidence. 

       Appeal dismissed as moot.


                                       BY THE COURT:


                                       _______________________________________
                                       Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Chief Justice

                                       _______________________________________
                                       John A. Dooley, Associate Justice

                                       _______________________________________
                                       James L. Morse, Associate Justice

                                       _______________________________________
                                       Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice

                                       _______________________________________
                                       Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice