Professional liability Flashcards
Lipari v Sears Roebuck
Negligent sale of firearm?
Sears was sued because they sold him a gun and then Sears sued US/VA because they should have warned public/Sears about his serious mental illness
Expanded therapist duty to protect “foreseeable vics” i.e. public
Brady v Hopper
Hinkley’s therapist was immune from lawsuit - he was sued by the victims (random ppl) who Hinkley shot
Court held that Hinkley wasn’t liable because he wasn’t aware of specific threats to specific vics - NO FORESEEABLE RISK
Jablonksi v U.S.
Melinda Kimball murdered by Jablonski; he daughter sued the hospital for negligence in not warning her mother
Court ruled that the hospital should have consulted Jablonski’s prior medical records when assessing his risk
expanded Tarasoff from duty to warn to duty to PROTECT
Hedlund v Superior Court of Orange County
therapist warned a woman that her partner had made threats
woman and her child were attacked
CASC ruled that the therapist had a duty to warn that extended to children of the potential vic since they are often together - child is a foreseeable victim
Ryans v Lowell
psychiatrist conducted IME for company and opined that the man’s benefits should be terminated
Ryans sued for negligence - misdiagnosis
Court ruled that doctors conducting IMEs only have a duty of care to the insurance company - not the examinee
Ervin v American Guardian Life Assurance Co
Ervin underwent physical exam when applying for life ins. Dr. Knee reviewed results and saw an abnormality on EKG. Ervin died from heart attack and wife sued doctor.
Court ruled that Dr. Knee didn’t have a duty of care to Ervin as no physician-pt relationship was established so the lawsuit was dismissed
Biestek v Berryhill
Biestek applied for disability benefits due to back disc disease.
Vocational expert testified that jobs existed that he could do despite his limitations.
Expert was asked to provide data about her testimony and she refused, citing confidentiality concerns.
SCOTUS held that an expert’s refusal to provide supporting data doesn’t automatically render testimony insufficient as substantial evidence
