CA Laws That Guide the Specifics of Clinical Practice: Tarasoff

Question 1

In __________, the CA Supreme Court reached its landmark decision in Tarasoff v. The Regents of the UC.

Answer 1

1976.

Question 2

“Once a therapist does in fact determine, or under applicable professional standards reasonably should have determined, that patient poses a serious _________________ to others, he bears a duty to exercise reasonable care to ___________ the foreseeable victim of that danger.”

Answer 2

• Danger of violence
• Protect

Question 3

In an attempt to clarify therapists’ responsibilities, the CA legislature enacted the Tarasoff Statute (Civil Code 43.92). It specifically states that there is a duty to ________, protect, and _________ the following situation: “Where the patient has communicated to the psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims.” In this situation, the therapist must make “reasonable effort to communicate the threat to the ____________(s) and to a _________________.”

Answer 3

• Warn
• Predict
• Victim(s)
• Law Enforcement Agency

Question 4

Essentially, the Tarasoff duty is to __________, _______________, and ____________.

Answer 4

• Warn
• Protect
• Predict

Question 5

In the landmark 2004 opinion in _______________ v. ________________ and _________________ v. _________________, the court of appeal stated that communications from family members are patient communications within the meaning of the Tarasoff Statute.

Answer 5

• Ewing v. Goldstein, Ph.D.
• Ewing v. Northridge Medical Center

Question 6

A therapist does not have a Tarasoff duty when the patient makes a threat toward ________________________, and it is clear that no person will potentially be at risk.

Answer 6

Someone’s property.

Note: If someone might potentially be harmed (e.g., setting fire to a building), a Tarasoff duty does exist.