Back to AI Flashcard MakerPsychology /CPLEE CA Laws That Guide the Specifics of Clinical Practice: Tarasoff
CPLEE CA Laws That Guide the Specifics of Clinical Practice: Tarasoff
This deck covers the key aspects of the Tarasoff duty as outlined by California laws, focusing on the responsibilities of therapists regarding threats of violence.
In __________, the CA Supreme Court reached its landmark decision in Tarasoff v. The Regents of the UC.
1976.
Tap or swipe ↕ to flip
Swipe ←→Navigate
1/6
Key Terms
Term
Definition
In __________, the CA Supreme Court reached its landmark decision in Tarasoff v. The Regents of the UC.
1976.
“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.”
• Danger of violence • Protect
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 _________________.”
• Warn • Predict • Victim(s) • Law Enforcement Agency
Essentially, the Tarasoff duty is to __________, _______________, and ____________.
• Warn • Protect • Predict
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.
• Ewing v. Goldstein, Ph.D. • Ewing v. Northridge Medical Center
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.
Someone’s property. Note: If someone might potentially be harmed (e.g., setting fire to a building), a Tarasoff duty does exist.
Related Flashcard Decks
Study Tips
- Press F to enter focus mode for distraction-free studying
- Review cards regularly to improve retention
- Try to recall the answer before flipping the card
- Share this deck with friends to study together
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
In __________, the CA Supreme Court reached its landmark decision in Tarasoff v. The Regents of the UC. | 1976. |
“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.” | • Danger of violence • Protect |
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 _________________.” | • Warn • Predict • Victim(s) • Law Enforcement Agency |
Essentially, the Tarasoff duty is to __________, _______________, and ____________. | • Warn • Protect • Predict |
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. | • Ewing v. Goldstein, Ph.D. • Ewing v. Northridge Medical Center |
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. | Someone’s property. Note: If someone might potentially be harmed (e.g., setting fire to a building), a Tarasoff duty does exist. |