Chapter 6 Flashcards
Breaching confidentiality because of a clients HIV status is not one of the exceptions to confidentiality. T or F?
True
Jablonski resulted in a
negligent failure to commit
9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a mental health professional’s duty to predict dangerousness includes consulting a patient’s prior records, and that their duty to protect includes the involuntary commitment of a dangerous individual; simply warning the foreseeable victim is insufficient.
Jablonski v US
all states now require reporting of
child and elder abuse
Two processes that offer safeguards against malpractice liability in suicidal cases are:
consultation and documentation
A psychologist and a psychological assistant were seeing a man and woman in treatment. The man threatened to harm the woman and the therapists warned her of the threats. Ultimately, the man ran the woman and her son off the road in her car and then shot her, leading to the loss of a leg. The woman sued the therapists, claiming that they did not warn her of the danger to herself or her son. The Supreme Court of California ultimately held that the therapists owed a duty not only to the woman, but also to her son because the injury to the woman’s son was foreseeable because children are not usually far from their parents.
Hedlund vs Superior court
When there is a reasonable suspicion of abuse or neglect a report must be made. T or F?
True
mandatory reporting laws only apply to threats regarding …..
future violence
Seven legally mandated exceptions to confidentiality
C W C L C A D
Courts Waiver Complaints Lawsuits Commitment Abuse Danger
Hedlund said that the duty to warn
extends to persons that might be near to intended victim
Psychotherapists have a duty to protect an individual they reasonably believe to be at risk of injury on the basis of a patient’s confidential statements.
Tarasoff
In Thapar v, Zezulka the Texas supreme court ruled that mental health workers …
do not have a duty to warn or protect their clients known and intended victims because it can violate confidentiality
the California Supreme Court called for a “duty to protect” the intended victim. The professional may discharge the duty in several ways, including (3)
- notifying police
2,warning the intended victim - taking other reasonable steps to protect the threatened individual.
Mr. X was dating Ms. Y but had threatened to kill her and her mother. After one incident that culminated in a threat towards her mother, she took him to the Loma Linda VA Hospital, where the doctor conducted a risk assessment, but did not consult his prior records; which documented a history of violent behavior. Based on this incomplete data, he determined erroneously that Mr. X was not a danger to himself or others and released him. He warned Ms. Y to leave Mr X but did not warn her of his potential for violence. When Mr. Xwas discharged from the hospital, he killed Ms. Y’s mother
Jablonski v US
in a Supreme Court decision, ruled that communications between licensed psychotherapists and their clients are privileged and therefore protected from forced disclosure in cases arising under federal law.
Jeffe v Redmund
