Psychotherapy Malpractice-New Risks for Psychotherapists
A new California Appellate case increases the risk of psychotherapy malpractice.
(PRWEB) November 22, 2004 -- The psychotherapist/patient privilege requires
that what is said in psychotherapy remains confidential. However there are
several limited exceptions.
For example, when a patient threatens the
life of an identified victim, the therapist is to make an attempt to warn the
victim. However, a recent California case( Ewing v. Goldstein, Case#B163112) has
expanded the duty of clinicians to inform an identified victim who may be in
harm’s way from their patient. The Court ruled that if a therapist learns about
the danger from a close relative, there is a duty to break confidentiality .
The prior law held that the duty is triggered only if it was the patient
who made the threat. Unless the California State Supreme Court over overturns
the Ewing decision, a therapist may be in a large Catch 22 situation.
Imagine if a relative gives a phony report to the therapist. On the
surface, a statement from a relative might seem legitimate. If the therapist
acts on it, are they still immune from a malpractice lawsuit?
In this
instance, the therapist might be liable for breach of confidentiality. At times,
it may be difficult if not impossible to evaluate the credibility of third party
statements. What if the therapist believes the communication from the relatives
or even a friend is less than reliable and does not make warn the intended
victim? What is more troublesome is that the notion of relying on non-patient
communication could be expanded even further.
Donald A. Eisner, Ph.D.
J.D. Author, “Death of Psychotherapy: From Freud to Alien Abductions” (
Greenwood,2000)
(818) 788-6512 www.eisnerpsychlaw.com
# # #
Source : http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/11/prweb180550.htm