AAPL Landmark: Duty to Protect Flashcards
Is it a therapist’s duty to protect a third party from a dangerous patient?
Yes.
Tarasoff v. Regents, 551 P.2D 334 (1976)
The California Supreme Court ruled that a therapist has a duty to warn individuals threatened by patients in Tarasoff I in 1974. In 1976, Tarasoff II the CSC ruled that the “special relationship” between provider and patient created a duty to protect others from a dangerous patient based upon the logic of foreseeability.
Does a psychiatrist’s duty to protect third parties extend to foreseeable but unidentified third parties?
Yes.
Lipari v. Sears, 497 F. Supp. 1985
The Nebraska Supreme Court extended Tarasoff’s reasoning to Nebraska and affirmed that a special relationship exists, imposing affirmative action to protect third parties from a dangerous patient. The victim did not need to be readily identifiable but could be a “class of persons” who could be “reasonably foreseen” to be harmed by the dangerous patient.
Does a psychiatrist’s duty to third parties include protecting foreseeable victims from potential danger caused by a patient’s noncompliance with medication?
Yes.
Petersen v. Washington, 671 P.2D 230 (1983)
The Washington Supreme Court opined that a psychiatrist’s duty to third parties includes protecting foreseeable victims from potential danger caused by a patient’s noncompliance with medication.
Larry Knox killed a woman while driving intoxicated. The accident happened 5 days after he was d/c from the psychiatric hospital for a drug-induced psychosis. The court said he should have been detained or the public warned.
Is a psychiatrist required to protect a foreseeable victim in the absence of a specific threat?
Yes.
Jablonski v. US., 712 F.2D 391 (1983)
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a mental health professional’s duty to predict dangerousness included consulting a patient’s prior medical records and that their duty to protect includes the involuntary commitment of a dangerous individual; simply warning the foreseeable victim is insufficient.
Jablonski was antisocial and had a history of rape and HI toward his gf and her mother. The therapist warned the gf once but did not review prior records that indicated he had tried to kill his wife on several occasions and did not commit him acutely.
Does a psychiatrist have a duty to protect the public from a dangerous former patient?
Yes.
Naidu v. Laird, 539 A.2D 1064 (1988)
The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed that the special relationship between patient-psychiatrists creates a “broad-based obligation to protect the public from potentially violent patients.”
The psychiatrist, Naidu, was negligent for releasing a patient 5 months prior who killed Laird’s husband in a car accident. Naidu did not obtain or review his history and discharged him with oral meds.
