Terasoff vs the regents of the university of california

duty to warn
-obligation of mental health professional
-help the client and help the public from the client
-different in each state

Terasoff 1 - duty to warn

Terasoff 2 - duty to protect (as well as warn)

Tersoff 1
-limit to confidenciality when public is in danger

-Poddar in 1967 (exchange student form India)

-meets weekly Terasoff
-Terasoff rejected Poddar and he didn't took this lightly
-Treated by Dr. Gould (diagnosed schizophrenia)
-moved to Dr. Moore
-Poddar meets Dr. Moore weekly
-Poddar has a pathological attraction to Terasoff and
fantasized killing her (Dr. Moore figured)
-By Poddar's remarks, Dr. Moore knew he intented to kill
Terasoff
-Dr. Moore, suggested Poddar shall be committed involuntarily
and to be investigated/evaluated
-Law in California, authorized police to pick up people needed for
evaluation
-August 20, 1969, two days after Dr. Moore determined there's a threat
-Dr. Moore told the police he would sign a 72-hour hold for Poddar if
they come to pick him up and bring him to the hospital
-in the latter, Dr. Moore noted to the police that Poddar can be rational
times and other times psychotic (he can be a danger to other people and
hmself)
-In an interview with the police, they concluded that Poddar is rational
and not a danger (attitude changed)
-Another clinician intervene, Dr. Paulson that made the police release
Poddar, he also told to return the leters to Dr. Moore and odered to
destroy all noted he sent regarding Poddar and to take no futher action to
commit Poddar
-No one notified Terasoff and her family of Poddar's threats
-Poddar got rejected again by Terasoff and she was killed by Poddar
-He was convicted for second degree murder, down to manslaughter
-asked for retrial, with a condition that he won't need to if he return to
India
-Murdered occured in 1969 and Poddar was released in 1974
-Dr. Moore was fired by the clinic
-Terasoff's family sued the campus police and the univesity of california's
health service for negligence

-Prior to this incident, no court recognizes a legal duty to warn the potential
victim of a client
-no liability againts the two defendants of this case
-two findings in this case are terasoff 1 (duty to warn, 1974) and terasoff 2 (duty
to
protect, 1976)
-therapists protested against that the idea that a therapist could reliably
predict the violent acts of the client, and a warning would constitute a
breach of confidentiality
-Terasoff 2: the moment a therapist determined that a threat existed, they need
to take action and this is to either try to hospitalized a client or warning other
people and the intended victim (variety of actions not restricted to a duty to
warn)
-can warn, but most importantly the duty is to protect
-it enforces non-negligent behavior rather than perfection
-therapist are required to use reasonable degree of skill, knowledge and care
posessed by a member of that profession under similar circumstances

Problems with Terasoff 2:

-Some states (in the US) broadened or narrowed this law, and some does
not recognized it
- Thompson vs the country of Alameda: terasoff two rulling is not applicable
for non-specific threats made against non-specific person
-therapists in some states suggest that there needs to be a clearly identified
victim in order for them to warn or protect
-Moments Reflection: for council's who are not allowed to evaluate, in order to
reveal the victim's identity
-Once the therapist determines there's a potential danger they are liable in doing
something to care to protect the potential victim
-Many clinician's don't know the findings that affect the client's state

-The general idea is in most states, if a therapist breaks confidentiality because

they are trying to learn somebody's in danger, they cannot be held liable