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 usually opens the records is a further step, most commonly designating your treating therapist as an expert to prove the anguish.
What you told a rape crisis advocate is protected by a separate statute, and that protection is generally stronger. Two answers you may hear are both wrong: that everything you told a counselor becomes public if you sue, and that nobody can ever touch your records. The real answer depends on choices made in the case, several of which are yours, and you can talk them through before anything is filed. Call 713-521-0059 before you designate a witness or sign a records release.
In most cases, yes. 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 generally 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. It also covers a record containing the survivor’s identity, personal history, background or information about the victimization. Subsection (c) gives you 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.
Section 420.072 lists the only circumstances in which the material may be disclosed. They include a suit you bring against the advocate or the program, your waiver, your written consent, imminent danger, and compliance with the child abuse and adult protective statutes. The listed exceptions do not include a civil suit you bring against a hotel, an apartment complex, an employer or a school.
There is 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 usually helps keep the privilege intact. Section 420.071(c-1) also provides that unauthorized disclosure of part of a confidential communication or record does not itself waive the privilege, subject to what that subsection says. If you worked through the assault with an advocate rather than a therapist who becomes an expert witness, the most sensitive account may not be discoverable.
Texas Rule of Evidence 510 protects confidential communications between a patient and a mental health professional. It also protects the records of identity, diagnosis, evaluation and treatment. You, as the patient, hold 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. The communication or record must also be 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. It reasoned 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. The same is true 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 was 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. Records relevant to that condition then become discoverable under Rules 509(e)(4) and 510(d)(5).
The court also recognized another route in. 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.
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 too. A rape crisis advocate and a licensed therapist are governed by different law. That is not a reason to avoid therapy, which can help you. It is a reason to know which conversation sits behind which wall.
Records from before 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 useful in narrowing that request, and the scope is often negotiable and can be reviewed by the court in camera.
None of this is decided by filing. These are litigation decisions made later, with counsel, and you can walk through them before you commit 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 you need. None of this is a reason to avoid counseling. Ask what kind of provider you are seeing, because 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 can change the analysis.
You can ask this question without giving your name and without deciding whether to file. We will explain how the privileges work and which choices in a case can open your records. Then we plan how to keep closed the records that should stay closed.
Schiffer Law Firm is a Houston personal injury firm with 50 plus years of combined experience representing injured people and survivors across Texas.
If you are an advocate or a counselor asking on someone’s behalf, you are welcome to call with a general question. We will not ask you for their name.
There is no charge to talk, and no attorney’s fee unless there is a recovery.
Written by Jacob Schiffer, Attorney, Schiffer Law Firm. State Bar of Texas No. 24105175.
Call 713-521-0059.
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.
In most cases, yes. Section 420.071 of the Government Code protects them, separately from the therapist privilege and generally more strongly. Section 420.072 lists the only permitted disclosures, and a civil suit you bring against a property owner or institution is not among them. In a suit you bring against a property owner or institution, 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. Going without care is the worse outcome, and none of this is a reason to give it up. 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 can be contested, and a court can review the records privately before deciding.
No. Which witnesses to use and which records to put at issue are litigation decisions made later, with counsel. You can talk them through before you commit to anything.