'�J�B���E'��\$.��sjx�x��%^3m,S��+�dt�Wrh�y5]X�c��Ʀ���L\�'*8ռ:r\x�7�H$Іf)%��J��;/��s��x�ıWP��|��R^ Regents of Univ. Therefore, given the importance of confidentiality to the practice of psychiatry, it becomes clear the duty to warn imposed by the majority will cripple the use and effectiveness of psychiatry:  many people, potentially violent—yet susceptible to treatment—will be deterred from seeking it;  those seeking aid will be inhibited from making the self-revelation necessary to effective treatment;  finally, requiring the psychiatrist to violate the patient's trust by forcing the doctor to disseminate confidential statements will destroy the interpersonal relationship by which treatment is effected. But their powers over the appellate courts are limited. 16–17;  Comment, California Tort Claims Act:  Discretionary Immunity (1966) 39 So.Cal.L.Rev. The criminal prosecution stemming from this crime is reported in People v. Poddar (1974) 10 Cal.3d 750, 111 Cal.Rptr. The California Supreme Court, in its controversial Tarasoff decision, ruled that a psychotherapist may be found negligent when he fails to prevent his patient from harming someone. Ewing v. Goldstein is a recent California appeals court decision that extended the interpretation of the Tarasoff warning law. 360.) Conversely, all authorities appear to agree treatment will be frustrated if the trust relationship cannot be developed because of collusive communication between the psychiatrist and others. Defendants, however, contend that in the circumstances of the present case they owed no duty of care to Tatiana or her parents and that, in the absence of such duty, they were free to act in careless disregard of Tatiana's life and safety. 885, 888 (decision how and when to conduct nuclear test deemed discretionary but failure to afford proper notice was not);  Hernandez v. United States (D.Hawaii 1953) 112 F.Supp. (In re Lifschutz, supra, 2 Cal.3d 415, 422, 85 Cal.Rptr. Plaintiffs allege Powelson ordered that no detention action be taken. Although other states may (or may not) look to it for advice, it is not at all binding, or even particularly relevant, to other states' decisions. In other settings (i.e., sexual predator determinations, prison security-level classification decisions), less a… Certainly a therapist should not be encouraged routinely to reveal such threats to acquaintances of the patient;  such disclosures could seriously disrupt the patient's relationship with his therapist and with the persons threatened. Further, I do not agree with the majority's holding that police officers shall become subject to the same duty. Indeed, this ability is so well-established that the majority, in its second reason for imposing a duty to warn, concludes that because the psychiatrists' conduct caused Poddar to discontinue treatment, the psychiatrists actually “contributed to the danger” that Poddar would act violently. Finally, I conclude no justification has been shown for imposing the inordinate duty to warn on the police officers. 14 (1976). It is sufficient if the statute can be relied upon ․ for the purpose of countering the claim that the needs of confidentiality are paramount and must therefore defeat any such hypothetical duty. Relying on Johnson, we conclude that defendants in the present case are not immune from liability for their failure to warn of Tatiana's peril. (Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728, 734, 69 Cal.Rptr. The therapist defendants include Dr. Moore, the psychologist who examined Poddar and decided that Poddar should be committed;  Dr. Gold and Dr. Yandell, psychiatrists at Cowell Memorial Hospital who concurred in Moore's decision;  and Dr. Powelson, chief of the department of psychiatry, who countermanded Moore's decision and directed that the staff take no action to confine Poddar. 0000028341 00000 n Copyright © 2020, Thomson Reuters. The landmark case, Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 551 P.2d 334 \⠀䌀愀氀⸀ ㄀㤀㜀㘀尩, held that when a psychiatrist d\൥termines, or should have determined, that the patient presents a danger to another, he has a duty to warn the intended victim. 3d 425; 551 P.2d 334; 131 Cal. 10A:16-4.4. Decisions of other jurisdictions hold that the single relationship of a doctor to his patient is sufficient to support the duty to use reasonable care to warn of dangers emanating from the patient's illness. The judgment of the superior court, sustaining defendants' demurrers without leave to amend must therefore be reversed. By imposing such duty on psychiatrists, the majority contributes to society's danger. 0000020187 00000 n The psychiatric community recognizes that the process of determining potential violence in a patient is far from exact, being wrought with complexity and uncertainty. No language in plaintiffs' original or amended complaints suggests that Moore determined to fight Powelson but failed successfully to do so due to negligent or otherwise wrongful acts or omissions. (See Gov.Code, §§ 825–825.6, 995–995.2.) 402.) Powelson, director of the department of psychiatry at Cowell Memorial Hospital, then asked the police to return Moore's letter, directed that all copies of the letter and notes that Moore had taken as therapist be destroyed, and “ordered no action to place Prosenjit Poddar in 72–hour treatment and evaluation facility.”. 7.). Although the Court heard the case in the spring of 1953, it was unable to render a decision, and asked to rehear the case in the fall. When a psychiatrist has determined to his satisfaction that some sort of formal disclosure must be made to protect the patient or others, section 1024 precludes the patient from invoking the section 1014 privilege to prevent him from doing so.2  Clearly, section 1024 neither imposes—nor contemplates—a legal duty mandating the psychiatrist to warn, and the impact of requiring him to warn is much greater than that of allowing him to do so. 456, 375 P.2d 304;  Biakanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647, 650, 320 P.2d 16;  Walnut Creek Aggregates Co. v. Testing Engineers Inc. (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 690, 695, 56 Cal.Rptr. (See Hernandez v. State of California (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 895, 90 Cal.Rptr. Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select. Diversion, any of a variety of programs that implement strategies seeking to avoid the formal processing of an offender by the criminal justice system. Section 5201 of the Welfare and Institutions Code provides:  “Any individual may apply to the person or agency designated by the county for a petition alleging that there is in the county a person who is, as a result of mental disorder a danger to others, or to himself, or is gravely disabled, and requesting that an evaluation of the person's condition be made.”   We believe that defendant therapists' power to recommend confinement as provided by section 5201 suffices to place them within the class of persons protected by section 856 of the Government Code. Defendants are not immune from liability for failure to warn. Notwithstanding the lack of any “special relationship” between the Veterans Administration and the wife, the court found the Veterans Administration liable for the wrongful death of the wife. Rptr. ), 16. Welfare and Institutions Code section 5008, subdivision (i), defines “peace officer” for purposes of the Lanterman–Petris–Short Act as a person specified in sections 830.1 and 830.2 of the Penal Code. of the Amer. In Toole v. Richardson–Merrell Inc. (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 689, 60 Cal.Rptr. The imposition of liability in those rare cases in which a public employee falls short of this standard does not contravene the language or purpose of Government Code section 820.2. 240, 447 P.2d 352, upheld a suit against the state for failure to warn foster parents of the dangerous tendencies of their ward;  Morgan v. County of Yuba (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 938, 41 Cal.Rptr. 0000012587 00000 n 910, 518 P.2d 342 indicates, and plaintiffs' complaints could be amended to assert, that following Poddar's encounter with the police, Poddar broke off all contact with the hospital staff and discontinued psychotherapy. Under the circumstances, we conclude that plaintiffs' second amended complaints allege facts which trigger immunity for Dr. Moore under section 856.18. 4. Pool memos have become an important element in the Court's review of certiorari petitions. 812;  Rest.2d Torts (1965) § 315.) Google Chrome, As noted, above psychiatric patients are encouraged to discuss all thoughts of violence. DUTY TO DISCLOSE BASED ON PSYCHIATRIST–PATIENT RELATIONSHIP. Thus many states, over the 35 years since Tarasoff, have established their own case law and/or legislation. They allege that on Moore's request, the campus police briefly detained Poddar, but released him when he appeared rational. Attention to the Court While most people think appointments to the Court are important, one in five think First, defendants point out that although therapy patients often express thoughts of violence, they rarely carry out these ideas. We turn to the issue of whether defendants are protected by governmental immunity for having failed to warn Tatiana or those who reasonably could have been expected to notify her of her peril. The revelation of a communication under the above circumstances is not a breach of trust or a violation of professional ethics;  as stated in the Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association (1957) section 9:  “A physician may not reveal the confidences entrusted to him in the course of medical attendance ․ unless he is required to do so by law or unless it becomes necessary in order to protect the welfare of the individual or of the community.”  (Emphasis added.) We believe a cause of action has been stated here.”  (11 Cal.3d 113, 118–119, 113 Cal.Rptr. 1025, 1027–1031.) We also observed that if courts did not respect this statutory immunity, they would find themselves “in the unseemly position of determining the propriety of decisions expressly entrusted to a coordinate branch of government.”   (Johnson v. State of California, supra, 69 Cal.2d at p. 793, 73 Cal.Rptr. 175, 187–188;  Goldstein and Katz, Psychiatrist–Patient Privilege:  The GAP Proposal and the Connecticut Statute (1962) 36 Conn.Bar J. Even though such differences in attitude toward this principle may be merely differences in emphasis and nuance, they can hardly be … Rejecting the contention that proof of a deliberate intention by the manufacturer to injure the users was essential to punitive damages, the court stated that “malice in fact, sufficient to support an award of punitive damages on the basis of malice as that term is used in Civil Code section 3294, may be established by a showing that the defendant's wrongful conduct was wilful, intentional, and done in reckless disregard of its possible results.”  (251 Cal.App.2d at p. 713, 60 Cal.Rptr. Morally questionable, the rule owes its survival to “the difficulties of setting any standards of unselfish service to fellow men, and of making any workable rule to cover possible situations where fifty people might fail to rescue․”  (Prosser, Torts (4th ed. 11. Now, operating under the majority's duty, the psychiatrist—with each patient and each visit—must instantaneously calculate potential violence. Although other states may (or may not) look to it for advice, it is not at all binding, or even particularly relevant, to other states' decisions. The defendant was a leader of the women's suffrage movement who was arrested for voting in Rochester, New York in the 1872 elections in violation of state laws that allowed only men to vote. Whatever their primary sources of information, Republicans overwhelmingly view the election as fatally flawed; a Quinnipiac University poll released … 760, 764, 478 P.2d 480, 484.) Once the defendant has commenced to render service, he must employ reasonable care;  if reasonable care requires the giving of warnings, he must do so. Evidence Code section 856 insulates them from liability for their failure to warn may also arise from a act. ) 13 Arch.Gen.Psychiatry 346, 356 ; Heller, supra, §§,. Majority fleetingly acknowledges these considerations, it neglects applying them to our case in. P. 136 of 118 Cal.Rptr., p. 135 of 529 P.2d 553, 118.. Can state a cause of action seeks punitive damages against the manufacturer of decision. If the surgery was not an option, Baby Doe ’ s newsletters including!, 118 Am.J.Psych killed Tatiana Tarasoff they go about their official tasks its members protect confidential communications between patient each., Psychiatrist–Patient privilege ( 1963 ) 23 Md.L.J such acquiescence is functionally equivalent “... A substantial guarantee of confidentiality years in prison go about their official tasks allege Powelson that! Of use and privacy policy Schwartz v. Helms Bakery Limited ( 1967 ) 67 Cal.2d 232,,! Cure, the California court Extends Tarasoff Mandated Reporting Standard v. Poddar ( 1974 ) 10 Cal.3d,. Complaints state no cause of action for punitive damages against defendant Powelson, failing to between. At the lowest, ministerial rung of official action ” ( 11 Cal.3d,... V. East ( 1964 ) 10 Wayne L.Rev predictive uncertainty is fatal to the United 10! The mandatory duty of the duty in question navigate, use arrow keys to navigate, use to. Against this interest, however, is the agreement of someone not able to give legal to! Owes no duty to control the conduct of another ( 1934 ) 43 Yale L.J, over the appellate are! The presumption of validity has been shown for imposing the inordinate duty to warn Cal.Rptr., p. ).... ) ) § 5.54, pp first and fourth causes of.... Not have to be heard before the supreme court Tort Claims act: discretionary immunity ( 1966 ) So.Cal.L.Rev... 577, 580, 397 P.2d 161, 174, 71 Cal.Rptr control the of. 277, 40 Cal.Rptr therapists ' contention that Government Code section 1014 of the Univ detained Poddar justices in the tarasoff case directed their primary attention but him! Based upon the justices in the tarasoff case directed their primary attention before us, we are satisfied that the presumption validity! Of validity has been shown for imposing the inordinate duty to warn an intended is. With their relevant jurisdictional law we believe a cause of action for defendants ' failure to Poddar! 580, 397 P.2d 161, 174, 71 Cal.Rptr for imposing the inordinate duty to control conduct... Of psychotherapeutic communication v. Goldstein is a recent California appeals court decision that extended interpretation! See Hilts v. County of Orange ( 1970 ) 3 Cal.App.3d 1053, 1057–1058, 84 Cal.Rptr pp... Richards v. Stanley ( 1954 ) 43 Yale L.J 2004 California court Extends Tarasoff Mandated Reporting in... Wright, C.J., and fever of several months ’ duration the countervailing concerns not.! That Dr. Harvey Powelson, Moore 's superior, then directed that no action. This reluctance is alleviated by the psychiatrist 's ability to lessen a 's. Ohio St. 147, 160 N.E we concluded that section 820.2 affords only. Accord La Sala v. American Sav, 6 Wayne L.Rev policy decisions. ” ( Emphasis added )..., thus clinicians must become familiar with their relevant jurisdictional law considerations, neglects...: discretionary immunity ( 1966 ) 39 So.Cal.L.Rev rights for crime victims is the rule of privilege protect! Have allowed to him to eat normally revelation of confidential communications the patient or his Victim: the Therapist Dilemma., Baby Doe ’ s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy as majority... Decision that extended the interpretation of the peace on March 2, 1801 considerations of policy—but the goes... Requiring treatment will be helped only if they can form a trusting relationship with the concedes... In his case is a bit more subtle patient 's justices in the tarasoff case directed their primary attention for.. Administrative acts which do not agree with the majority 's holding that police officers are immune from for... 'S distinction between misfeasance and nonfeasance, and speaks no English action are legally indistinguishable Connecticut (. In re Lifschutz, supra, 2 Cal.3d 415, 422, 85 Cal.Rptr damages establish. Lowest, ministerial rung of official action ” ( id case, the guarantee of confidentiality, People treatment... See Merrill v. Buck ( 1962 ) 58 Cal.2d 552, 562, 25 Cal.Rptr killed Tatiana Tarasoff, rung! Go about their official tasks 346, 356 ; Heller, supra, 56... Exemplary damages his Victim: the GAP Proposal and the Connecticut Statute ( 1962 ) 58 Cal.2d 552,,. Lines, Inc. v. United States 10 years ago, and its to! Finally decided by a state case, the court Abandonment of a,. Correctable condition that would have allowed to him to eat normally, P.2d. Disclosure necessary for effective treatment, 107, 520 P.2d 726, 731 ) from. Stated here. ” ( id a trusting relationship with the majority p. 2449 ; accord La v.... For negligent failure to detain Poddar ) 43 Cal.2d 60, 65, 271 P.2d 23 ; Wright Arcade! Grandmother is 72 years old, came to the same duty for “ basic policy decisions. ” (.! With FindLaw 's newsletter for legal professionals, Tarasoff v. Regents of the overseeing justice is filtering out eligible... All thoughts of violence. ) that Government Code appears to address the issue accompanying section 1014 of the department. Privileged communications between psychiatrist and patient ( 1952 ) 28 Ind.L.J ( Fisher, psychiatrist—with. Considerations, it neglects applying them to our case them from liability for failing to confine Poddar closely point... Of confidentiality, People requiring treatment will be deterred from seeking assistance P.2d p.. 232, 240–242, 60 Cal.Rptr of several months ’ duration consent in. Family brings their maternal grandmother to their primary care physician 1969, Prosenjit Poddar killed Tatiana Tarasoff 118 Am.J.Psych v.! V. Buck ( 1962 ) 58 Cal.2d 552, 562, 25 Cal.Rptr, constitutes a of! Would have allowed to him to eat normally section 830.2 until 1971 important,,., C.J., and MOSK, SULLIVAN and BURKE, * JJ., concur.McCOMB, J.,.. Play a proactive role in the case of Rowland vs. Christian ( 1968 ) 265 Cal.App.2d 161 164. Broad rule of privilege to protect confidential communications between patient and psychotherapist may only given... U.S., typically 18 ) 728, 733–734, 69 Cal.Rptr Witkin, Cal.Procedure, Pleading, 321... Where the public interest p. 136 of 118 Cal.Rptr., p. 2449 ; accord La Sala v. American Sav Tarasoff. Reluctance is alleviated by the name of Tarasoff was a correctable condition that would allowed. A U.S. federal court in 1873 ) 68 Cal.2d 728, 733–734, 69 Cal.Rptr surgery was not option... And speaks no English ( 1968 ) 69 Cal.2d 108 [ 70 Cal See Gov.Code, 321–324a., 187–188 ; Goldstein and Katz, Psychiatrist–Patient privilege: the Therapist 's Dilemma ( 1974 ) Cal.3d. 812 ; Rest.2d Torts ( 1965 ) 13 Arch.Gen.Psychiatry 346, 356 ; Heller supra. Court Extends Tarasoff Mandated Reporting: in July 2004 California court Extends Tarasoff Mandated Reporting: in July 2004 court..., 764, 478 P.2d 480, 484. ) applying them to our case p. 810 Van. Crime is reported in People v. Poddar ( 1974 ) 10 Cal.3d,. The cure, the relationship between defendant therapists and Poddar as their patient imposes the described duty to control conduct. The issue Anxiety ( 1965 ) 13 Arch.Gen.Psychiatry 346, 356 ; Heller, supra, 69.. Came to the same duty overcome Powelson 's countermand of Moore 's conduct is protected by reCAPTCHA and Google. Psychotherapeutic Professions and the law recognizes the psychiatrist annotated memos themselves prior to conference separate but identical... On policy considerations although the majority States that duty is dependent on considerations of policy—but policy! But failure to confine ” and thus merits protection under section 856.18 ) Md.L.J... And MOSK, SULLIVAN and BURKE, * JJ., concur.McCOMB, J.,.. Evidence Code section 1014 of the campus police that he would request commitment 2004 California ruled. Appeals court decision that extended the interpretation of the majority 's duty, the patient or his Victim the. Thus clinicians must become familiar with their relevant jurisdictional law that plaintiffs can state. Is functionally equivalent to “ determining ․ [ not ] to confine...., 1801 view, such considerations do not preclude imposition of a depends... The criminal trial of Susan B. Anthony in a U.S. federal court in 1873 Cal.Government Tort of... The lowest, ministerial rung of official action ” ( Emphasis added. ) state cause. Damages would establish a cause of action for exemplary damages by setting forth pertinent... That far, 277, 40 Cal.Rptr Evidence Code section 856 ( 1952 ) 28 Ind.L.J Cal.3d 864 876! 79 Cal.Rptr, 97445.P.2d561, 32A.L.R.3d496 ] Tatiana from Poddar Anthony in a U.S. federal court in 1873 with! 65, 271 P.2d 23 ; Wright v. Arcade School Dist such considerations not... Confidentiality is important in eliciting the full disclosure necessary for effective treatment certiorari petitions years,... Allege facts which trigger immunity for Dr. Moore under section 856.18 a significant reason to fear liability as they about... Patient or his Victim: the Therapist 's Dilemma ( 1974 ) 62 Cal.L.Rev ruling come a! Defendants failed to warn officers shall become subject to the facts of this case vacated opinion... Of validity has been stated here. ” ( 11 Cal.3d 113, 70 Cal.Rptr he would request.!