Tatiana Tarasoff was murdered by Prosenjit Poddar a patient of psychotherapist employed by the University of California Hospital. Tarasoff parents brought an action against the university regents, doctors and campus police. The Tarasoffs complained that the doctors and police failed to warn them that their daughter was in danger from Poddar. Justice Tobriner argues that a doctor or psychotherapist treating a mentally ill patient has a duty to warn third parties of threatened dangers arising out of the patient’s violent intentions. Tobriner argues that the public interest in safety from violent assault must be weighed against the patient’s right to privacy. Justice Clark dissenting from Justice Tobriner’s majority opinion argues that confidentiality in the psychiatrist patient relationship must be assured for three reasons.
Charleston Community Memorial Hospital proved a corporate negligence doctrine in the case (Pozgar, 2013). The court found a jury could reasonably find negligence due to the fact that staff did not test for circulation as often as needed, it was concluded that skilled nurses would have been aware of circulation problems, informing attending staff promptly (Law School Case Briefs,2013). There was no argument that the defendant, the hospital in this case, failed to review physicians work, or require a consultation. A jury found that this failure was within reason to assume a negligent act was performed, or not performed in this case (Law School Case Briefs,2013). A person goes to a hospital and within reason expects the hospital to treat them (Pozgar, 2013). There is a legitimate basis in this case to hold the hospital vicariously responsible for torts of its employed staff (Law School Case Briefs,2013). In Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital, the jury found negligence by both the doctor and the nursing staff, this was supported with evidence during the trial (Law School Case
I selected the article “Duty to Warn and Protect: Not in Texas” for review, as it applies to the state in which I reside. The article cites Texas Health and Safety Codes, based on a 1999 Texas Supreme Court ruling that states counselors do not have a duty to warn or protect. Having a duty to warn and protect is defined as protecting clients or others from perceived harm (Jackson-Cherry & Erford, 2014). An example would be that a client tells their counselor in a confidential session that he is considering stabbing his ex-girlfriend. The duty to warn would mean the counselor should notify authorities and the ex-girlfriend thus breaking confidentiality. The duty to protect would be to admit client to a facility for the client to be assessed for a propensity for violence towards the ex-girlfriend. This became important after a 1969 incident where a counselor, had a client expressed harm towards a girl and the counselor contacted the authorities, yet never contacted the girl, who was subsequently killed by the client a few months later, known as the Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California case (Jackson-Cherry & Erford, 2014).
When someone doesn’t live up to their responsibility of exercising care, and that failure leads to another person’s injury or death, the action or lack of action is referred to as negligence. As an example, say someone causes a fatal accident because they were speeding. In this case, the driver who was driving above the speed limit acted negligently, and therefore can be held liable in court for damages caused. The victim’s surviving family members can also file a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that the driver who caused the crash owes them damages associated with that untimely and unnecessary death.
The judicial precedence set by Tasaroff v Regents of the University of Caliornia.17 Cal.3d 425,551 P.2D 334,131 Cal. Rptn 14 (1976) demonstrates vividly that unlike their counterparts in other medical disciplines, Psychiatrists may need a lower disclosure threshold given that they may see patients who are mentally volatile and potentially dangerous!( Farlex,2012).In this scenario, Prosenjit Poddar, a mental health patient student at the University of California, informed his Psychologist of his intent to murder Tatiana Tasaroff two months in advance. The Psychologist went ahead and disclosed this information to the campus police who held the patient for a brief period and released him upon deeming him rational only to end up killing Tasaroff !The
For a plaintiff to triumph a claim of medical malpractice for negligence, four elements must be established. The first element is proving the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. The second is to show that the defendant breached the duty to the plaintiff. The third is to show that the plaintiff was harmed and experienced damages. Finally, the fourth is to show that the plaintiff was harmed by the actions of the defendant (Greenberg, 2009).
This proceeding before a Medical Review Panel, pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. §§ 40:1299.41, et seq., is brought by Jimmy Martinez against multiple health care providers, including Dr. Mark Kappelman, a qualified health care provider entitled to have the claim filed against him reviewed by this Panel. The claims made against Dr. Kappelman are mere allegations without support and proof. In a medical malpractice case the burden of proof is on the claimant to establish that Dr. Mark Kappelman’s actions in this matter fell below the standard of care required of similar health care providers. The claimant also bears the burden of proving whether any such alleged act or acts of negligence caused any injuries. It is the duty of the
Plaintiffs allege that defendants had prior knowledge that their daughter was a target for murder by a psychiatric patient and failed to warn the victim or anyone capable of stopping act. Defendants had notified campus police of patient’s intent, but after detaining him briefly, chose to release him because he “appeared rational.” Plaintiffs allege liability based on defendants’ failure to warn of impending danger, and failure to confine the patient. The Superior Court of California sustained the defendants’ demurrers to plaintiffs’ complaints. Appeal followed.
It was clear negligence when it was so obvious that the toes did not have proper circulation. If the nurses were doing their job by checking on the extremities should have quickly noticed that there were circulation issues. By not reporting this was pure negligence.
One of the most important concepts in the field of social work and psychology is known as the duty to warn and duty to protect. Duty to warn mandates mental health professionals to break client confidentiality when they believe their client may harm. The duty to warn became a law in 1974 when the California Supreme Court ruled that mental health professionals must have the duty to protect a victim if the therapist believes that not warning them would protect them, the therapist must notify the police or other authorities. There is a debate around duty to warn; many therapists feel that some threats may not be credible. For example, a patient telling his therapist that they could just kill their mother for grounding them from all their electronics
The duty to warn and protect is the result of the Supreme Court case Tarasoff v Regents of the University of California. (Gehring 1982) In this case the courts decided that a psychotherapist having knowledge of the
In this case, the accident is the proximate cause of Mrs. Smith’s injuries and the medical providers are the intervening cause, as their breach of duty exacerbated Mrs. Smith’s injury to the point of permanent disability and disfigurement.
Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable
If what the person in question did met the requirements of what the standard of care calls for, then there has been no account of negligence. There are four main points that actually make up negligence. There must first be a situation in which the standard of care must be given under the given circumstances. Failing to follow the standard of care begins the case of negligence. After not satisfactorily completing the standard, there is an apparent setup for harm to the patient resulting from this failure to meet the requirements of care. When an injury is inflicted on the patient, that relates to the standard of care being violated, and that seals the case. Those are the four ingredients needed to complete a case of negligence (Cazalas 18).
In Gregg v Scott, Mr. Malcolm Gregg (‘the claimant’), the House of Lords examined the law of negligence in the area of personal injury. In order for the claimant to have a successful claim in court, the onus to shifts to the claimant to demonstrate that a duty of care owed by the doctor, there was a breach of that duty, an injury was sustained, and the negligence on behalf of the doctor Dr. Andrew Scott (‘defendant’) was a cause of the ‘injury’. If these elements are not satisfied, the claimant may lose its entitlement to full compensation.