{"id":54,"date":"2017-01-27T11:55:09","date_gmt":"2017-01-27T16:55:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/handponist.lawblogger.net\/blog\/?p=54"},"modified":"2026-02-05T13:06:46","modified_gmt":"2026-02-05T18:06:46","slug":"no-privilege-in-indiana-for-unlicensed-social-workers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/no-privilege-in-indiana-for-unlicensed-social-workers\/","title":{"rendered":"No Privilege in Indiana for Unlicensed Social Workers"},"content":{"rendered":"

Last July, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided Rogers v. State<\/a><\/em>, 60 N.E.3d 256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), in which the attorney for a criminal defendant had deposed an employee of a charitable organization who held a degree in social work from an accredited university but not a license from the Behavioral Health and Human Services Licensing Board<\/a> of the Indiana Professional Licensing Agency<\/a>. The attorney for the organization advised the social worker not to answer certain questions on the grounds that the information was subject to the privilege for communications between a social worker and her client. The defendant filed a motion to compel the social worker to answer the questions, and the court denied the motion. The court gave the defendant permission to file an interlocutory appeal with the Indiana Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court\u2019s decision, holding that the privilege does not apply to unlicensed social workers. The State sought transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, which held oral argument before denying transfer. Because transfer was denied, the decision of the Court of Appeals is now final.<\/p>\n

Ind. Code 23-25.6-6-1<\/a> provides that, with some exceptions, a \u201ccounselor\u201d cannot be compelled to disclose communications with a client. Counselor is defined by Ind. Code 25-23.6-1-3.8<\/a> as \u201ca social worker, a clinical social worker, a marriage and family therapist, a mental health counselor, an addiction counselor, or a clinical addiction counselor who is licensed under this article.\u201d The question put to the Court of Appeals was one of statutory interpretation: Does the phrase \u201cwho is licensed under this article\u201d apply to all six professions in the list, or does it apply only to the last one, clinical addition counselors?<\/p>\n

In arguing that the modifying phrase applied only to the last item in the list, the State relied in part on a canon of statutory construction (i.e., a rule a court sometimes uses as a guideline for interpreting statutes) called the doctrine of the last antecedent, which says that when a list of nouns is followed by a modifier, the modifier is presumed to apply only to the last one in the list (i.e., the \u201clast antecedent\u201d) unless there is a comma between the last item and the modifier. Because there is no comma between \u201cclinical addiction counselor\u201d and \u201cwho is licensed under this article,\u201d the State argued, the phrase does not apply to \u201csocial worker.\u201d Therefore, an unlicensed social worker is within the definition of \u201ccounselor;\u201d and the privilege applies.<\/p>\n

Continue Reading \u203a<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Last July, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided Rogers v. State, 60 N.E.3d 256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), in which the attorney for a criminal defendant had deposed an employee of a charitable organization who held a degree in social work from an accredited university but not a license from the Behavioral Health and Human […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-54","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-criminal"],"yoast_head":"\nNo Privilege in Indiana for Unlicensed Social Workers — Indiana Law Blog — January 27, 2017<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Last July, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided Rogers v. State, 60 N.E.3d 256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), in which the attorney for a criminal defendant had — January 27, 2017\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/no-privilege-in-indiana-for-unlicensed-social-workers\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"No Privilege in Indiana for Unlicensed Social Workers — Indiana Law Blog — January 27, 2017\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"Last July, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided Rogers v. State, 60 N.E.3d 256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), in which the attorney for a criminal defendant had — January 27, 2017\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Michael R. Smith\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"No Privilege in Indiana for Unlicensed Social Workers — Indiana Law Blog — January 27, 2017","description":"Last July, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided Rogers v. State, 60 N.E.3d 256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), in which the attorney for a criminal defendant had — January 27, 2017","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/no-privilege-in-indiana-for-unlicensed-social-workers\/","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"No Privilege in Indiana for Unlicensed Social Workers — Indiana Law Blog — January 27, 2017","twitter_description":"Last July, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided Rogers v. State, 60 N.E.3d 256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), in which the attorney for a criminal defendant had — January 27, 2017","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Michael R. Smith","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/no-privilege-in-indiana-for-unlicensed-social-workers\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/no-privilege-in-indiana-for-unlicensed-social-workers\/"},"author":{"name":"Michael R. Smith","@id":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/6ded106cef4b13f2236b9b7e428bce95"},"headline":"No Privilege in Indiana for Unlicensed Social Workers","datePublished":"2017-01-27T16:55:09+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-05T18:06:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/no-privilege-in-indiana-for-unlicensed-social-workers\/"},"wordCount":892,"articleSection":["Criminal"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/no-privilege-in-indiana-for-unlicensed-social-workers\/","url":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/no-privilege-in-indiana-for-unlicensed-social-workers\/","name":"No Privilege in Indiana for Unlicensed Social Workers — Indiana Law Blog — January 27, 2017","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2017-01-27T16:55:09+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-05T18:06:46+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/6ded106cef4b13f2236b9b7e428bce95"},"description":"Last July, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided Rogers v. State, 60 N.E.3d 256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), in which the attorney for a criminal defendant had — January 27, 2017","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/no-privilege-in-indiana-for-unlicensed-social-workers\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/no-privilege-in-indiana-for-unlicensed-social-workers\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/no-privilege-in-indiana-for-unlicensed-social-workers\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"No Privilege in Indiana for Unlicensed Social Workers"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/","name":"Indiana Law Blog","description":"Published by Indiana Lawyers \u2014 Harshman Ponist Smith & Rayl","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/6ded106cef4b13f2236b9b7e428bce95","name":"Michael R. Smith","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/095342975260becd46df795933b96309ce26cc246013b9675f2ebfbfb15aeb88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/095342975260becd46df795933b96309ce26cc246013b9675f2ebfbfb15aeb88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/095342975260becd46df795933b96309ce26cc246013b9675f2ebfbfb15aeb88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Michael R. Smith"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/businesslaw.hpindiana.law\/michael-r-smith.html"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=54"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":297,"href":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54\/revisions\/297"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hpindiana.law\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}