In re Marriage of Stoll, 2022 IL App (1st) 210201-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Stoll, No. 1-21-0201, 2022 IL App (1st) 210201-U (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. Aug. 29, 2022). Petitioner-Appellee: Amy Hanson Stoll. Respondent-Appellant: Andrew Stoll.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether a divorcing parent must disclose mental health (psychotherapist/therapist) records and other medical records when parenting time and fitness are contested.
2. The scope and application of psychotherapist/physician–patient privileges and their exceptions (in‑camera review; waiver/putting condition in controversy).
3. Whether a contempt finding for failure to produce records should stand.

- Holding / outcome (succinct)
The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated the contempt order. It held that (a) Andrew’s psychotherapy/mental health records were not discoverable because neither he nor any witness testified as to their substance (psychotherapist privilege remained intact), and (b) other medical records related to his physical condition/hospitalizations were discoverable under the exception for litigation where the patient’s physical or mental condition is at issue. The contempt sanction was vacated.

- Significant legal reasoning (essentials)
The court treated psychotherapist communications and general medical records as subject to separate protections. It emphasized that a party does not automatically waive psychotherapist confidentiality simply because medical/behavioral incidents are alleged; to overcome that privilege the communications themselves must be put into issue (e.g., by testimony or by using the content as a defense). Here, no testimony about psychotherapy content was offered, so those records remained privileged. By contrast, Andrew had affirmatively placed his physical condition (hospitalizations, dehydration, C‑Pap issue, alleged “crash”) into the litigation as a defense to allegations about his parenting fitness. That invocation brought other medical records within the well‑recognized exception to the physician–patient privilege for cases in which a party’s physical/mental condition is an element of the claim, justifying limited disclosure and in‑camera review to identify relevant records.

- Practice implications (practical takeaways for attorneys)
- Distinguish psychotherapist/therapy communications from routine medical records; privilege analysis differs.
- Counsel statements about a client’s health can risk putting condition in controversy — be cautious when framing defenses/explanations for hospitalizations or mental‑health episodes.
- If opposing discovery of mental‑health records, insist on in‑camera review and narrowly tailor requests to relevant incidents; raise psychotherapist privilege affirmatively.
- When seeking records, plead and argue the specific exception (condition‑in‑controversy) and seek limiting orders/protective orders for relevance and scope.
- Contempt for noncompliance may be vacated if court orders are overbroad; ensure orders are precise before imposing sanctions.