preview

Memorandum: Case Study

Decent Essays

Memorandum TO: Professor Jan M. Levine FROM: Adam Weiss LRW § 4 DATE: November 3, 2016 RE: Carpenter, Spencer; wrongful death by breach of duty to warn about dangerous outpatient Statement of Facts Our clients, Rita Mae Carpenter and Thomas F. Spencer, are seeking to bring a wrongful death cause of action against Dr. Richard Hapman (Hapman), an Atlanta psychiatrist, for his failure to warn their decedents, Carpenter’s brother and sister-in-law and Spencer’s wife, about the threat presented by his foreseeably dangerous outpatient Bradley Mitchell (Mitchell). Mitchell began treatment with Hapman in September 2010 (their conversations then became privileged). Mitchell was obsessed with the five members of the Beta-Beta-Beta (Tri-Beta), …show more content…

Hapman, their conversations and any records generated by Hapman became privileged, meaning that he could be liable if he disclosed. The privilege statutes state that “There are certain admissions and communications excluded from evidence on grounds of public policy, including . . . Communications between psychiatrist and patient.” Ga. Code Ann. § 24-5-501(a)(5). This replaced an older one with the only change being the addition of the “from evidence” language. Ga. Code Ann., § 24-9-21 (replaced in 2011). This privilege applies even after the patient’s death. Cooksey v. Landry, 761 S.E.2d 61, 65 (Ga. 2014). There are exceptions to this privilege for extreme cases such as child abuse, where a psychiatrist must report the abuse per Ga. Code Ann. § 19-7-5, during court mandated examinations where a psychiatrist must give testimony on a patient’s ability to stand trial, or in involuntary commitment proceedings determining the need to commit the patient. Leggett v. State, 259 S.E.2d 476, 478 (Ga. 1979); Ga. Code Ann. § …show more content…

The commitment statute in Georgia states “Any physician within this state may execute a certificate stating that he has personally examined a person within the preceding 48 hours and found that, based upon observations set forth in the certificate, the person appears to be a mentally ill person requiring involuntary treatment.” Ga. Code Ann. § 37-3-41(a) (Emphasis added). Telephone conversations, such as the one between Hapman and Mitchell, cannot be used as a personal evaluation for commitment purposes. Kendrick v. Metro. Psychiatric Ctr., Inc., 282 S.E.2d 361,362,364 (Ga. Ct. App.

Get Access