Limiting Therapist Exposure to Tarasoff Liability Guidelines for Risk Containment
نویسنده
چکیده
The "duty to protect" third parties, first imposed by the Tarasoff case, has concerned and perplexed clinicians. A series of guidelines is offered for reducing therapist exposure to suit, based on expert witness experience in a number of cases raising this form of tort liability. These guidelines concern the assessment and management of risk, the documentation of information and activities, the formulation of written policies, and damage control when risk is realized.
منابع مشابه
No duty to warn in California: now unambiguously solely a duty to protect.
In 2013, legislation went into effect clarifying that the Tarasoff duty in California is now unambiguously solely a duty to protect. Warning the potential victim and the police is not a requirement, but a clinician can obtain immunity from liability by using this safe harbor. In situations in which a therapist believes warning might exacerbate the patient's risk, however, alternative protective...
متن کاملTarasoff and the dangerous driver: a look at the driving cases.
In three recent cases, hereinafter referred to as the driving cases, the courts have taken up the issue of whether a psychotherapist should be held liable for negligent diagnosis and treatment and failure to warn third parties of a patient's potential danger to others in the operation of an automobile. These cases will be discussed as (1) an extension of the Tarasoff decision, which established...
متن کاملHow a rabbi's sermon resolved my Tarasoff conflict.
Houses of worship are not places where psychiatrists typically expect to gain insight into forensic issues. But a few years ago, a rabbi’s comments on a familiar passage from Leviticus helped me resolve an intrapsychic conflict that had troubled me for years, ever since I learned about the Tarasoff decisions. When I give first-year residents their introductory lessons on legal issues and psychi...
متن کاملBack to the past in California: a temporary retreat to a Tarasoff duty to warn.
The original Tarasoff decision created a duty for California psychotherapists to warn potential victims of their patients. After rehearing the matter two years later, the California Supreme Court, in the landmark second Tarasoff decision, changed the duty to warn to a duty to protect potential victims, with warning as only one of the options for discharging that duty. Despite this change, the T...
متن کاملStatus of the psychiatric duty to protect, circa 2006.
States have responded to the Tarasoff duty to protect by passing statutes in all but 13 states. Such statutes either mandate or permit warning a potential victim. In this study, we analyzed 70 Tarasoff-related cases from a Westlaw-based search between 1985 and 2006. We determined the extent to which clinicians are being held liable for breach of the Tarasoff duty in statutory and nonstatutory s...
متن کامل