''Ewing v. Goldstein'' ( Cal. Ct. App. 2004) is a landmark court case that extended

California California is a U.S. state, state in the Western United States, located along the West Coast of the United States, Pacific Coast. With nearly 39.2million residents across a total area of approximately , it is the List of states and territori ...

mental health professional A mental health professional is a health care practitioner or social and human services provider who offers services for the purpose of improving an individual's mental health or to treat mental disorders. This broad category was developed as a ...

duty to protect In medical law and medical ethics, the duty to protect is the responsibility of a mental health professional to protect patients and others from foreseeable harm. If a client makes statements that suggest suicidal or homicidal ideation, the cli ...

identifiable victims of potentially violent persons, as established by ''

Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California ''Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California'', 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 ( Cal. 1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals w ...

'', to include acting upon communications from third parties that indicate a possible threat.

Facts

In the "Factual and Procedural Background" section of its ruling, the appellate court found the following facts: Between 1997 and 2001, former police officer Gene Colello received treatment from David Goldstein. One of reasons for seeking treatment was the depression that Colello was experiencing after breaking up with his girlfriend and learning that she had become involved with Keith Ewing. In June 2001, Colello told his father that he was "considering causing harm" to Ewing. Colello's father relayed this statement to Goldstein. Goldstein encouraged Colello's voluntary hospitalization, which was done. When learning that Colello was going to be discharged from the hospital the next day, Goldstein urged the hospital psychiatrist to reconsider that decision. The hospital discharged Colello and, one day later, he murdered Ewing and then committed suicide. Ewing's parents brought suit against Goldstein (as well as Collello's parents and the hospital psychiatrist) alleging professional negligence for failing to warn either Ewing or law-enforcement agencies about the "risk of harm his patient posed to their son's safety".

Ruling

The court ruled that the case should be heard by the lower court. They determined that the duty to protect was not sufficiently discharged by initiating involuntary commitment and could be discharged only by warning the identifiable victims.

Implications

This case created a clear distinction between the duty to protect and the subordinate

duty to warn A duty to warn is a concept that arises in the law of torts in a number of circumstances, indicating that a party will be held liable for injuries caused to another, where the party had the opportunity to warn the other of a hazard and failed to d ...

and made communications by a third party indicating threatening statements equivalent to statements made directly by that person.

References

External links

*{{caselaw source , case = Ewing v. Goldstein , findlaw =http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/ca/caapp4th/slip/2004/b163112.html , other_source1 =Stanford University , other_url1 =http://www.stanford.edu/group/psylawseminar/Ewing.htm United States tort case law Mental health case law in the United States California state case law 2004 in United States case law 2004 in California