N.J.R.E. 534 is being proposed as a new omnibus rule advanced to establish a consolidated mental health service provider privilege, “to replace the different and occasionally inconsistent privileges that currently exist for communications between patients and various mental health service providers.” The privilege would apply “to confidential communications between a mental health service provider and a patient during the course of treatment of, or related to, the patient’s mental or emotional health condition.” N.J.R.E. 534(a)(1). The rule categorically excludes communications made between the affected mental health service providers and victims of violent crimes; including them instead under the N.J.R.E.517 “Victim Counselor Privilege.”
Subsection (a)(4) defines “patient” to include terms such as “client,” “victim” (a confusing example, considering the above-referenced exclusion), “or some other equivalent term in the context of the relationship.” Nonetheless, it might be helpful to specify the intended breadth of the word “patient” earlier in the rule, to steer linear readers away from mistaken preliminary conclusions. Terminology selection in this regard is arguably more than mere semantics, inasmuch as language used by mental health service providers is often indicative of the way they categorize or regard the various kinds of help they offer.
