Top Law Schools

Self studier here; I'm actually surprised this hasn't happened sooner. Wondering if anyone has heard about this or received some sort of definitive answer.

I have a 2013 Kaplan outline that specifically says, in a special note, NOT to assume the doctor patient evidentiary privilege applies in federal court (unless it's diversity jurisdiction).

On the other hand, I have the most recent Critical Pass flashcards which say, in a special note, that the MBE assumes doctor patient privilege exists.

Before you call me an autist, I wouldn't be worried about it if the conflict were over something super obscure, but with the materials drawing particular attention to it I worry it'll be tested.

From what I remember, assume it applies unless ithe question is applying federal law. I think an example when it wasn't applicable had the defendant charged with mail fraud, which is a federal crime and therefore applies federal law. If there is no indication that federal law is being applied, then apply the privelege, but if the case is applying federal law, the privelege does not exist. Correct me if I'm wrong.

ceereeus420 wrote:From what I remember, assume it applies unless ithe question is applying federal law. I think an example when it wasn't applicable had the defendant charged with mail fraud, which is a federal crime and therefore applies federal law. If there is no indication that federal law is being applied, then apply the privelege, but if the case is applying federal law, the privelege does not exist. Correct me if I'm wrong.

This is more or less what I'm going to go with unless I hear different; it doesn't make sense to waste a bunch of time on one point of law. Thanks.