## Facts

- Dr. Robert L. Hosford, a licensed clinical psychologist, provided marital counseling to Patricia and Jimmy Lindsey beginning December 31, 1981, including joint and individual sessions.
- The Lindseys disclosed confidential information to Hosford within the psychologist–patient relationship.
- After divorce and child custody disputes arose, Hosford executed an affidavit recommending custody be awarded to Jimmy.
- The affidavit included information derived from Hosford’s professional interactions with Patricia and from joint counseling sessions.
- Patricia did not consent to the disclosure, and the disclosure was not made pursuant to a court order.
- Patricia filed a complaint with the Mississippi State Board of Psychological Examiners alleging unauthorized disclosure of privileged/confidential communications and breach of professional confidentiality standards.

## Issues

1. Whether a psychologist violates enforceable professional confidentiality standards by voluntarily disclosing patient confidences in a custody-related affidavit without the patient’s consent and without a court directive.
2. Whether the Board acted within its statutory authority in interpreting the profession’s confidentiality ethics (including a narrow reading of any “clear danger” exception) and suspending Hosford’s license.
3. What level of judicial deference applies on review of the Board’s factfinding, ethical-rule interpretation, and chosen sanction.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the chancery court and reinstated the Board’s order.
- The Court held the Board acted within its lawful authority and discretion in finding that Hosford violated professional confidentiality principles.
- The Court upheld the Board’s view that the “clear danger” exception did not apply on the facts presented.
- The Court sustained the 90-day suspension of Hosford’s psychology license.
- The Court rejected the argument that the matter became moot due to withdrawal of the complaint and settlement of related private litigation, because the Board’s regulatory interest is independent.

## Legal Principles

- A state professional licensing board may interpret and enforce professional ethical standards for licensees and impose discipline when violations are found.
- Psychologist–patient confidentiality is a core professional obligation; disclosure without patient consent is prohibited absent a recognized exception or legal compulsion.
- Exceptions allowing disclosure for “clear danger” may be construed narrowly by the regulatory board; a non-imminent or non-life-threatening concern may be insufficient to justify unilateral disclosure.
- Courts reviewing professional board discipline generally defer to the board’s reasonable ethical-rule interpretation, supported factual findings, and non-arbitrary sanctions, and may not substitute their judgment for the board’s.
- Regulatory discipline may proceed in the public interest regardless of a complainant’s later withdrawal or private settlement.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated a 90-day suspension imposed on a psychologist who disclosed patient confidences in a custody affidavit without consent or court compulsion, deferring to the licensing board’s reasonable interpretation and enforcement of confidentiality ethics and recognizing the board’s independent public-protection authority.


Miss. State Bd. of Psych. Exam’rs v. Hosford, 508 So. 2d 1049 (Miss. 1987)