CPLEE - CA Laws That Guide the Specifics of Clinical Practice: Tarasoff
In 1976, the California Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California, establishing the duty of mental health professionals to warn potential victims if a patient poses a serious threat of harm, balancing confidentiality with public safety.
In __________, the CA Supreme Court reached its landmark decision in Tarasoff v. The Regents of the UC.
Key Terms
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...
Related Flashcard Decks
| 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.” |
|
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 _________________.” |
|
Essentially, the Tarasoff duty is to __________, _______________, and ____________. |
|
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. |
|
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. |