Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California - revisited

1. Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California - revisited Wendy Packman PhD Used with permission

2. Tarasoff StatuteCal.Civ. Code (§ 43.92) • When does a psychotherapist have an affirmative duty to act? • A therapist has a duty to protect and warn a potential victim(s) when the following 3 conditions are met:

3. Psychotherapist duty to warn and protect: 1. Patient has communicated to the psychotherapist a threat of physical violence 2. The threat must be serious 3. The victim(s) must be reasonably identifiable

4. How does a therapist fulfill duty to warn and protect?: By reasonableefforts to communicate the threat: 1. To the victim(s) and 2. To the police

5. Ewing vs. Goldstein

6. What happened? • The therapist (Goldstein) treated the patient for work-related emotional problems and problems concerning his former girlfriend. • Patient told his father that he was considering causing harm to his former girlfriend’s new boyfriend.

7. Ewing v. Goldstein: Facts • The father contacted the therapist and told him what the patient had said. • Patient subsequently murdered the boyfriend and then committed suicide. • Parents sued therapist for wrongful death based on therapist’s failure to warn the victim after the therapist received a communication that the patient threatened to kill or cause serious physical harm to the victim.

8. California Court of Appeal findings: • Court found that the trial court too narrowly construed § 43.92. A communication from a family member to a therapist, made for the purpose of advancing a patient’s therapy, was a “patient communication” within the meaning of § 43.92.

9. California Court of Appeal findings: • The therapist’s duty to warn a victim arises if the information communicated leads the therapist to believe or predict that the patient poses a serious risk of grave bodily injury to another.

10. California Court of Appeal findings • A therapist has a duty to warn if, and only if, the threat which the therapist has learned – whether from the patient or a family member – actually leads him/her to believe the patient poses a risk of grave bodily injury to another.

11. California Court of Appeal findings • Information provided to therapists by family members that their client is a serious danger to self or others is a part of the confidential treatment process. Thus, the duty to warn appropriate third parties and the police is triggered.

12. What does this mean? • This ruling would obligate therapists to be capable of reliably identifying telephonic or electronic messages as coming from an “intimate family member,” and to be able to assess the credibility of such communications in order to take immediate action. 

13. Implications ?? • The question is explicitly left open by the court as to how far the duty may extend—to in-laws, cousins, grandparents, step-relations, domestic partners, same sex partners, intimate friends, ex-spouses, ex-boyfriends, ad infinitum? 

14. Bad Decision • The California Supreme Court denied the petitions for review in the two Ewing cases on 11/10/04 (v. Goldstein and v. Northridge Hospital), and denied the requests to depublish the opinions.  So, the broader interpretation of Tarasoff's duty to warn remains. 

15. Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California - revisited End of presentation