Call Now
713-521-0059
Not by itself. In 2024 the Texas Supreme Court held that an allegation of mental anguish or emotional distress alone does not place a party’s mental condition in controversy. What opens the records is a further step, most commonly designating your treating therapist as an expert to prove the anguish. And communications with a rape crisis advocate are protected by a separate and stronger statute that has no exception for this kind of lawsuit, so long as no expert witness is asked to rely on the advocate’s records.
This is the question survivors ask before any other, and it is usually answered badly, in one of two directions.
The frightening version. That everything you ever told a counselor becomes public if you sue. That is not the law.
The reassuring version. That your records are simply privileged and nobody can touch them. That is not the law either, and a survivor who relies on it can be blindsided.
The accurate answer is that it depends on choices made in the case, several of which are yours, and all of which can be discussed before anything is filed.
If you spoke to an advocate at a rape crisis center or sexual assault program, that is not a therapy record. It is governed by Chapter 420 of the Government Code, and the protection is stronger.
Section 420.071(a) makes any communication between an advocate and a survivor made in the course of advising, counseling or assisting the survivor confidential. Subsection (b) extends that to any record created by, provided to or maintained by an advocate relating to services provided, or containing the survivor’s identity, personal history, background or information about the victimization.
Subsection (c) gives the survivor a privilege, in any civil, criminal, administrative or legislative proceeding, to refuse to disclose and to prevent another from disclosing that communication or record, for any purpose.
Here is the part that matters. Section 420.072 lists the only circumstances in which the material may be disclosed. They include a suit by the survivor against the advocate or the program, the survivor’s waiver, the survivor’s written consent, imminent danger, and compliance with the child abuse and adult protective statutes. There is no exception for a civil suit the survivor brings against a hotel, an apartment complex, an employer or a school. One qualification, in Section 420.072(c): if an expert witness relies on facts or data from an advocate communication or record to form an opinion, the Texas Rules of Evidence govern disclosure of that material. Keeping advocate records out of the experts’ hands keeps the privilege intact.
Subsection (c-1) also provides that unauthorized disclosure of a portion of a confidential communication or record does not itself waive the privilege, subject to what that subsection says.
Practical consequence, and it is a large one: where a survivor processed the assault with an advocate rather than with a therapist she designates as an expert, the most sensitive account of what happened may never be discoverable at all.
Texas Rule of Evidence 510 protects confidential communications between a patient and a mental health professional, and the records of identity, diagnosis, evaluation and treatment. The patient holds the privilege. Rule 509 does the same work for physicians and medical records.
The exception that matters is Rule 510(d)(5). The privilege does not apply where any party relies on the patient’s physical, mental or emotional condition as a part of the party’s claim or defense, and the communication or record is relevant to that condition. Rule 509(e)(4) is the parallel provision.
The exception is narrower than it reads, because of R.K. v. Ramirez, 887 S.W.2d 836 (Tex. 1994).
The court rejected relevance as the test, reasoning that a relevance test would defeat the purpose of a privilege, which exists precisely to keep out relevant evidence. It held instead that records are not discoverable if the patient’s condition is merely an evidentiary or intermediate issue of fact rather than an ultimate issue, or if the condition is merely tangential to a claim rather than central to it.
Its rule: the patient’s condition, to be a part of a claim or defense, must itself be a fact to which the substantive law assigns significance.
In re Richardson Motorsports, Ltd., 690 S.W.3d 42 (Tex. 2024) addressed the question directly.
The court held that an allegation of mental anguish or emotional distress does not by itself place a party’s mental condition in controversy. Asking a jury for mental anguish damages is not the affirmative step that opens the file.
What did open it. Designating treating mental health providers as expert witnesses to prove the mental anguish claim. That is an affirmative step placing diagnosis and treatment at issue, and records relevant to that condition become discoverable under Rules 509(e)(4) and 510(d)(5).
The other route in. The court also recognized that a defendant who pleads in good faith that some other cause produced the emotional harm can reach records addressing those specific conditions. In Richardson the defense pointed to a divorce, estrangement from a parent and other alleged abuse. So a defendant is not powerless. But it has to plead an alternative cause and it is limited to records addressing it.
You can seek mental anguish damages and still contest the records. That is the direct holding.
Using your own therapist as the witness is a choice with a price. It is often the most persuasive proof available, and it is also the step most likely to open the file. It can sometimes be avoided by using a retained examining expert instead, or by proving the harm through lay witnesses who knew you before.
Where you talk matters. A rape crisis advocate and a licensed therapist are governed by different law. That is not a reason to avoid therapy, which you should get. It is a reason to know which conversation sits behind which wall.
Nothing here is decided by filing. These are litigation decisions made later, with counsel, and they can be walked through before a survivor commits to anything.
Every statute and case linked above was read at its primary source. Texas statutes change every legislative session and case law is constantly changing.
This page is general information about Texas law. It is not legal advice about your situation, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Get the treatment. Nothing on this page is a reason to avoid counseling. Untreated trauma is worse than a discovery fight, and a survivor who forgoes care to protect a lawsuit has traded the wrong thing.
Ask what kind of provider you are seeing. A rape crisis center advocate, a licensed professional counselor, a psychologist and a psychiatrist are governed by different rules. Knowing which is which costs nothing and changes the analysis.
Records that predate the assault are a separate fight. A defendant will often ask for years of prior mental health history on an alternative-cause theory. R.K. v. Ramirez and Richardson Motorsports are both directly useful in narrowing that request, and the scope is negotiable and reviewable by the court in camera.
The first conversation is free, it is confidential, and it does not commit anyone to anything.
You can ask this question without giving your name and without deciding whether to file. It is a reasonable thing to want answered before anything else, and no survivor should have to choose between an honest answer and her privacy in order to get one.
If you are an advocate, a SANE nurse or a counselor asking on someone’s behalf, you are welcome to call with a general question. You do not need her permission to ask how something works, and we will not ask you for her name.
There is no charge to talk, and no attorney’s fee unless there is a recovery.
Call 713-521-0059.
No, not by itself. In In re Richardson Motorsports, Ltd., the Texas Supreme Court held that an allegation of mental anguish or emotional distress alone does not place a party’s mental condition in controversy.
Most commonly, designating your treating mental health providers as expert witnesses to prove the mental anguish claim. That is an affirmative step placing diagnosis and treatment at issue. A defendant may also reach records by pleading in good faith that some other cause produced the emotional harm, limited to records addressing that cause.
They are protected by Section 420.071 of the Government Code, which is separate from and stronger than the therapist privilege. Section 420.072 lists the only permitted disclosures, and none of them is a civil suit the survivor brings against a property owner or institution. The one route in is Section 420.072(c): an expert who relies on the advocate's records brings them under the Rules of Evidence.
No. Untreated trauma is the worse outcome, and nothing on this page is a reason to forgo care. The discovery question is a litigation decision made later, with counsel.
They will usually ask. R.K. v. Ramirez holds that records are not discoverable where the condition is merely tangential or an intermediate issue of fact rather than a fact to which the substantive law assigns significance. The scope is contestable and a court can review the records privately before deciding.
