#Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California

[hackoftheyear]

I never really thought about the whole “therapists need to report potential harm” thing before and I just have to say wow I can’t believe that there are people who feel that psychs have no duty to protect anyone but their patient even when the patient wants to hurt someone. Especially something like this, that guy was going to kill her if no one stopped him and. No one did.

[bluewatsons]

Elliott B. Martin Jr, To Invoke or Not to Invoke: Tarasoff Is the Question, Psychiatric Times (September 27, 2019)

The author presents for consideration and discussion two personal stories in which the so-called Tarasoff Rule, or the “duty to warn” a threatened third party, was invoked. One was arguably appropriate; the other, arguably not.

Case Report

Two cases illustrate the dilemma of the duty to warn. The intricacies of Tarasoff involve so many variables, from state to state, scenario to scenario, case to case. How does one practice good clinical judgment? Following this piece, James L. Knoll IV, MD, provides a forensic analysis, in Psychiatric Malpractice Grand Rounds: The Tarasoff Dilemma.

I would like to present for consideration and discussion two personal stories in which the so-called Tarasoff Rule, or the “duty to warn” a threatened third party, was invoked. One was arguably appropriate; the other, arguably not. In my experience, invoking Tarasoff remains quite contentious, and even legal specialists are often indecisive. For patient confidentiality, details in the cases presented have been changed.

Case 1

When I was an intern, we had a young man committed to us for attacking his mother, and for continuing to threaten her. This was especially problematic in that he lived with her, had no intention of living without her, and his mother was firmly set on his continuing to live with her. We held him for weeks, into months. He had several forensic evaluations along the way.

At first resistant, he eventually agreed to take medication. He learned “to say all the right things,” such that the forensic specialist assigned to his case agreed with the judge in the case that there were no longer grounds to hold him against his will. I, and others who had worked closely with him, did not agree, and so the Tarasoff rule was invoked.

I sat down face-to-face with the young man’s mother. I discussed at length with her that the patient would have to be discharged, and the reasons why. I explained as concretely as I could that although he had previously repeatedly made physical and homicidal threats toward her, he recently had been taking medication with superficial improvement such that a judge, as well as a specialist in criminal mental health, had advised us that we could no longer hold him against his will. She acknowledged all this with tears in her eyes and stoic resignation on her face. She absolutely understood what I was telling her, but she made it quite clear that she would welcome him back home regardless.

Two days later, he was arrested for stabbing his mother several times in the face. She survived the attack. He was eventually committed to a state forensics facility.

Case 2

When I was a fellow at a major pediatric hospital, we had a very disturbed young man who had been sent to us by his outpatient therapist after he had revealed to her several notebooks detailing the many gruesome ways he was planning on eviscerating and alternatively torturing and taking apart piece by piece a particular older boy at his high school. The notebooks were filled, front to back, with minute, bizarre scribblings, macabre poems, as well as several hand-drawn pictures of a mutilated young man in various stages of deconstruction and decomposition. Here and there were very large printed words, “DIE! DIE!” followed by the intended victim’s name.

The victim was a student in the same school, two years older. He reportedly had no idea this younger boy, whose eroto-manic delusions had utterly gotten the best of him, felt this way about him. The patient’s target was captain of the football team, a major player on the debate team, highly ranked in his class, of a well-known and popular local family, and apparently destined for great things, not least of which was having the most popular girls in school hanging off both arms.

This younger boy was not popular. He was homely and overweight, suffered from psoriasis and acne, and was withdrawn and isolative. He had few, if any friends. His parents had put him in therapy for what they saw as depression related to his sexual orientation. It was clear over the weeks we had him in the hospital, however, that his depression was complicated by significant delusional thinking. He believed he in fact had had some sort of relationship with this other boy.

These delusions, in fact, were so intense, that our patient initially believed the older boy impregnated him. More importantly, and frighteningly, he believed he had been most grievously wronged by this boy. We never did learn what this great insult was. But, in lieu of his love/hate-object, he made frequent threats against his perceived unborn baby. He was determined to make “the father” pay for the perceived transgression.

By all accounts otherwise, the older boy had no idea this younger boy even existed. Again, we kept the patient as long as we legally could. He did seem to improve with the combination of medication and “milieu therapy.” Eventually we had no reason to keep him. His parents wanted him home; he wanted to go home. He was different than the young man in the first case, in that no one really believed he would now actually harm anyone. He seemed to have developed some insight, and he eagerly approached therapy. He had been in the hospital nearly three months.

My supervisors, in consultation with the hospital’s legal team, debated long and hard over whether Tarasoff needed to be invoked in this situation. It was illuminating to learn just how gray this area is. The legal team was mostly noncommittal. But eventually, and at the hapless trainee’s (namely, my) expense, my clinical supervisors came to view this opportunity to invoke Tarasoff as a “teaching moment.”

I notified the local police where this boy lived. I notified, with parents’ permission, the school administration. (The parents did not want their son to transfer to another school-our first, most insistent, and best recommendation.) And then I had to call the older boy’s parents.

A difficult conversation

“Hello? Mrs Smith?”

“Yes.”

“Yes, hi. My name is Dr Martin, and I’m calling from the hospital. You don’t know me, but I’m calling about your son.”

“Oh, my goodness, what about him? Is he okay?”

“Oh, yes. And I do apologize. He’s not here. In the hospital, I mean. In fact, I’ve never met him.”

“What is this about, Doctor?”

“Mrs Smith, I am required by law to inform you that we have a patient here who will be discharged tomorrow, and this patient has made repeated homicidal threats toward your son.”

“Is this some kind of joke?”

“No, no, Mrs Smith. I work on the psychiatric unit here at the hospital, and we have been working with this patient for months now. It is our opinion that this patient is no longer dangerous, but we are required by law to inform you of the threats made earlier to your son.”

“Who is this person?” I could hear the panic.

“I cannot tell you that.”

“What do you mean, you ‘can’t tell me that’?!”

“I apologize, Mrs Smith, and I know this is awkward-”

“No, no, no, no. You call me out of the blue, tell me you’re from a hospital, and then tell me you’re about to release a patient who has made threats to kill our son?! And worse, you tell me you cannot let me know who this person is!”

I had no response to that.

“You’ve got a lot of nerve, Doctor. Do you know who my husband is?”

“Ma’am, I once again apologize; and believe me, if it were up to me, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, but-”

“How dare you! How dare you call me like this! I’m calling our attorney right now! What did you say your name is?! We are going to find out who this psychopath is, and we are going to be sure this nutcase is not allowed anywhere near the school!”

“I have already notified the local police.”

“So they know the name of this psycho.” (I believe this was a statement).

“I’m going to call Bob right now. And you, Doctor so-and-so, believe me, you haven’t heard the last of this.”

That, in fact, was the last I heard of her, and honestly, I totally saw her point.

Conclusion

In the emergency department setting, we mostly turf cases in which there is a question of invoking Tarasoff. In other words, we commit patients to the hospital and let the inpatient folks deal with it. We work under a (creative) assumption that by doing so, we absolve ourselves of the duty to warn.

But again, I’ve never gotten a straight answer on that one either.

[mntlhlthmtrs]

Origin and case law on the duty to warn. —————————————————— Meyer, Robert G., and Christopher M. Weaver. Law and mental health: A case-based approach. Guilford Publications, 2013.

[nursingpapersmarket]

Grand Canyon - PSY 622 Assignment Case of Tarasoff v. Regents

Grand Canyon – PSY 622 Assignment Case of Tarasoff v. Regents

PSY 622 Grand Canyon Assignment Case of Tarasoff v. Regents PSY622 PSY 622 Grand Canyon Assignment Case of Tarasoff v. Regents Details: In 750-1,000 words, consider the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California to answer the following: 1- Discuss why the case is important to mental health clinicians. 2- Describe the violence risk assessment instruments a clinician might use…

[bluewatsons]

Ahmad Adi & Mohammad Mathbout, The Duty to Protect: Four Decades After Tarasoff, 13 Am J Psychiatry 6 (2019)

Since the time of Hippocrates, the extent of patients' right to confidentiality has been a topic of debate, with some arguing for total openness and others for absolute and unconditional secrecy (1). In Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976), the California Supreme Court held that mental health providers have an obligation to protect persons who could be harmed by a patient. The court's decision mandates that mental health professionals use "reasonable care" in informing authorities or warning potential victims, initially referred to as the "duty to warn," or by using whatever means deemed necessary, should they determine that a patient poses a threat to a third party (2). The duty to protect has proliferated widely and has been adapted in some form throughout the United States. Forty years after the Tarasoff ruling, the threshold of the duty to protect remains subjective, with no clear set of clinical guidelines regarding when a breach of confidentiality is warranted, which places mental health providers in a dubious position.

Confidentiality facilitates open communication by reassuring patients that the intimate details of their lives that they disclose to their health care providers will remain private. U.S. legislation emphasizes the importance of confidentiality, which is enforced through the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). HIPAA ensures that communication (for the purpose of treatment) among health care providers about a patient is privileged. Granted, the exact scope of the patient protection (through HIPAA) varies, depending on the state and on the specific context. However, some form of patient protection (i.e., privilege) exists in most states and may be invoked in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, whether civil, criminal, or administrative in nature (3). The Tarasoff decision ultimately paved the way for the codification of the principle that confidentiality and, in turn, privilege are not absolute, especially when a patient communicates a seemingly legitimate threat that jeopardizes the safety of a third party (4).

The immediate dilemma created by the Tarasoff ruling is that of identifying the point at which "dangerousness" (typically, but not always, of an identifiable individual) outweighs protective privilege. According to HIPAA guidelines, mental health providers, similar to other health care professionals, are subject to liability for breaching provider-patient confidentiality. However, although the duty to protect, as delineated in the Tarasoff decision, is intended to relieve providers of such liability by mandating that they alert others of a possible threat from a patient, an incorrect reading of a situation could have the opposite effect. Specifically, in a situation in which a provider strongly feels that a particular circumstance justifies a breach of provider-patient confidentiality but is ultimately mistaken, the provider could then be held liable to the patient for the breach, irrespective of any good intention on the part of the provider. Conversely, a provider who favors confidentiality over the issuance of a warning could be subject to civil liability for negligence to any threatened third party (5).

In the years following the Tarasoff ruling, its effects on the mental health field have been substantial. Mental health providers, mindful of the duty they have to warn potential third-party victims, are more acutely aware of risk factors for violence (6). However, there remain some challenges involved in implementing the duty to protect. These challenges include clarifying expectations (regarding warning or protecting) for providers and establishing guidelines pertaining to the accurate prediction and assessment of dangerousness.

The Tarasoff decision, as it is presently interpreted, raises a set of questions that may be problematic from both medical and legal standpoints. Some have suggested that once a threat has been made, "there is generally little a victim can do unless the threat is imminent" and that "warning sometimes can inflame the situation and increase the danger" (7). This poses the question of whether there is any benefit from simply warning a third party. Part of the heterogeneity of the impact of the Tarasoff ruling is that different states have adopted different approaches to the implementation of the duty to warn or protect. Although some state legislation imposes a mandatory duty on mental health providers, other states have implemented a permissive duty (in that providers are not liable for breaching confidentiality and are not required to do so). Yet some states have not established a clear position on the implementation of Tarasoff-like decisions (either they do not have laws or have different laws for different types of mental health providers) (see box) (8).

Implementations of Tarasoff in the United States

Enlarge table

One challenge in predicting dangerousness is that providers are often unclear about how to accurately prognosticate, because "prediction and assessment of violent behavior do not yet have reliable, clinically validated paradigms" (1). This is especially problematic because, in many instances, people do not always intend to act upon their threats (9). Although mental health providers have some tools for violence risk assessment, such tools are not foolproof, and thus mental health providers are vulnerable to malpractice lawsuits (10). For example, in California "psychotherapists must warn both the foreseeable victim and the police in order to enjoy protection from subsequent lawsuits" (11).

The Historical, Clinical and Risk Management-20 scales are used for violence risk assessment. In one study, this risk-assessment model was validated to predict violent behavior in an inpatient setting (12). Another risk-assessment measure is the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide, which was validated to predict violent behavior among patients charged with criminal offenses in a study conducted in Germany (13). A study conducted in the United Kingdom examined both the aforementioned risk-assessment models in a prison setting (14). The authors reported that neither model was sufficiently predictive in the assessment of persons with severe mental disorders and particularly ineffective in the evaluation of persons with personality disorders (14). The main limitation of the three aforementioned studies is that the validity of the measures assessed was not examined in an outpatient setting, which is the setting in which a duty to protect situation is most likely to occur.

We argue for an unambiguous and ubiquitous method for predicting danger and applying the duty to warn directive. It is noteworthy that the decision to warn is not necessarily harmful and has been shown to be beneficial to potential third-party victims, as well as to the therapeutic progress of patients (1). The duty to warn directive could be made more universal by establishing it as a federal law, or by implementation of federal guidelines to assist states in consistent application of the injunction, which would minimize the legal liability among mental health providers, because they would be able to measure their actions against a clearly defined objective standard.

One possible mechanism by which third parties could be warned is a clinical point-system scale capable of assisting in the evaluation of the probability of a patient carrying out a threat. To be effective, such a measure would need to be developed on the basis of current evidence and authorized by mental health professionals who are experts in the field. Furthermore, a national consensus on the guidelines pertaining to the duty to protect needs to be established.

Previous studies have reported risk factors for patient violence to include previous diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder or thought disorders, previous suicidal or homicidal ideation or attempts, lack of social support, access to weapons, and current treatment with antipsychotics or mood stabilizers (1, 15–17). Other factors, on the basis of our literature review, include a patient's previous treatment rapport with his or her psychiatrist, whether the patient's symptoms are responsive to treatment or therapy, whether the patient has identified a specific person to harm or a location to carry out an act of violence, and whether the patient has identified a single person or a group of persons.

Four decades have passed since the Tarasoff ruling, yet a clear and ubiquitous method for its application has not been established. Discrepancies and vagueness between states, as well as between providers, regarding how and when to apply the duty to protect still exist. Such variances affect both therapeutic alliances and providers' risk of legal liability. Development of more validated risk-assessment tools would assist mental health professions in their decision making, enabling preservation of the integrity of the provider-patient relationship and minimizing the risk of legal liability. Clinical judgment remains an invaluable addition to instruments for determining whether the duty to protect is warranted.

Key Points/Clinical Pearls

In Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976), the California Supreme Court held that mental health providers have an obligation to protect persons who could be harmed by a patient.

The immediate dilemma created by the Tarasoff ruling is that of identifying the point at which "dangerousness" (typically, but not

Dr. Adi is a third-year resident in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University, Durham, N.C. Dr. Mathbout is a third-year resident in the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, K.Y.

The authors thank attorney Sumayya Saleh, from the Hillsborough County Office of the Public Defender, Hillsborough, Fla., for her legal expertise.

References

Mills MJ, Sullivan G, Eth S: Protecting third parties: a decade after Tarasoff. Am J Psychiatry 1987; 144(1):68–74 Google Scholar

Cooper AE: Duty to warn third parties. JAMA 1982; 248(4):431–432 Crossref, Google Scholar

Best BW: (Annotation) Privilege, in Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Proceedings, Arising From Relationship Between Psychiatrist or Psychologist and Patient 44 A.L.R.3d 24; 1972 Google Scholar

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/mental-health-professionals-duty-to-warn.aspx Google Scholar

McClarren GM: The psychiatric duty to warn: walking a tightrope of uncertainty. Univ Cincinnati Law Rev Univ Cincinnati Coll Law 1987; 56(1):269–293 Google Scholar

Buckner F, Firestone M: "Where the public peril begins": 25 years after Tarasoff. J Leg Med 2000; 21(2):187–222 Google Scholar

Weinstock R, Vari G, Leong GB, et al.: Back to the past in California: a temporary retreat to a Tarasoff duty to warn. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2006; 34(4):523–528 Google Scholar

Mental Health Professionals' Duty To Warn [Internet]. National Conference of State Legislatures; 2015 Sep. Available from: http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/mental-health-professionals-duty-to-warn.aspx Google Scholar

Herbert PB: Psychotherapy as law enforcement. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2004; 32(1):91–95 Google Scholar

Fox PK: Commentary: So the pendulum swings—making sense of the duty to protect. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2010; 38(4):474–478 Google Scholar

Leong GB, Eth S, Silva JA: The psychotherapist as witness for the prosecution: the criminalization of Tarasoff. Am J Psychiatry 1992; 149(8):1011–1015 Google Scholar

Ivgi D, Bauer A, Khawaled R, et al.: Validation of the HCR-20 Scale for Assessing Risk of Violent Behavior in Israeli Psychiatric Inpatients. Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci 2015; 52(2):121–127 Google Scholar

Kröner C, Stadtland C, Eidt M, et al.: The validity of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) in predicting criminal recidivism. Crim Behav Ment Health CBMH 2007; 17(2):89–100 Crossref, Google Scholar

Coid JW, Ullrich S, Kallis C: Predicting future violence among individuals with psychopathy. Br J Psychiatry J Ment Sci 2013; 203(5):387–388 Crossref, Google Scholar

Beghi M, Rosenbaum JF, Cerri C, et al.: Risk factors for fatal and nonfatal repetition of suicide attempts: a literature review. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 2013; 9:1725–1736 Google Scholar

Foster TJ: Suicide prevention as a prerequisite for recovery from severe mental illness. Int J Psychiatry Med 2013; 46(1):15–25 Crossref, Google Scholar

Morriss R, Kapur N, Byng R: Assessing risk of suicide or self harm in adults. BMJ 2013; 347:f4572 Crossref, Google Scholar

[crypticlesbo]

Violence Risk  Description In 1200 words, consider the case of Tarasoff v. Regen

Violence Risk  Description In 1200 words, consider the case of Tarasoff v. Regen

Violence Risk  Description In 1200 words, consider the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California to answer the following: 1. Discuss why the case is important to mental health clinicians. 2. Describe the violence risk assessment instruments a clinician might use to meet the requirements provided for in Tarasoff. 3. Discuss if a clinician should be held civilly liable for violent…

[essayprof]

Case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California: PSY 622 Essay Assignment

Case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California: PSY 622 Essay Assignment

PSY 622 Assignment Case of Tarasoff v. Regents Case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California Details: In 750-1,000 words, consider the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California to answer the following: 1- Discuss why the case is important to mental health clinicians. 2- Describe the violence risk assessment […]

The post Case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University…

[fullgrade-blog]

646- Assign 8

Must be APA format, plagiarism free, avoid using contractions, and please check for grammatical errors.

Review Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California; then,research the law in your jurisdiction regarding the duty to warn third persons. (You may do your research on-line, be sure to site your source.) In a well-organized two to three page essay (minimum 750 words) answer the following: 

[pius2017]

Discuss why the case is important to mental health clinicians.

Discuss why the case is important to mental health clinicians.

In 1,000 words, consider the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California to answer the following:

Discuss why the case is important to mental health clinicians. Describe the violence risk assessment instruments a clinician might use to meet the requirements provided for in Tarasoff. Discuss if a clinician should be held civilly liable for violent behavior of an inmate the clinician…

[nursingtermpapers]

Discuss why the case is important to mental health clinicians: Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California. Details:

Discuss why the case is important to mental health clinicians: Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California. Details:

Discuss why the case is important to mental health clinicians: Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California. Details:

In1,000 words, (3 pages not including title page) consider the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California to answer the following:

Discuss why the case is important to mental health clinicians. Describe the violence risk assessment instruments a clinician…

[blogjasonyoungg-blog]

MGMT 520 Entire Course With Final NEW

http://www.mgmt520assignment.com/mgmt-520-new/mgmt-520-entire-course-with-final-latest

MGMT 520 Week 1 Discussion NEW

MGMT 520 Week 2 Case Study Colgate Palmolive Co NEW

MGMT 520 Week 2 Course Project Constitutional Issues, International Law Issues or administrative agency Issues (Apple) NEW

MGMT 520 Week 2 Discussion NEW

MGMT 520 Week 2 Proposed Regulation changes (2 Papers) NEW

MGMT 520 Week 3 Case Study tarasoff vs. regents of the university of California NEW

MGMT 520 Week 3 Course Project Torts, Product Liability or Environmental law issues (Apple) NEW

MGMT 520 Week 3 Discussion NEW

MGMT 520 Week 4 Case Study Lucy vs Zehmer NEW

MGMT 520 Week 4 Contract Case Analysis SpongeBob (2 Papers) NEW

MGMT 520 Week 4 Course Project contacts, real Property or Intellectual property issues (Apple) NEW

MGMT 520 Week 5 Case Study (Jane Lifeguard, John, Lionel and Evelyn Harrymore) (2 Papers) NEW

MGMT 520 Week 5 Case Study Meritor Savings bank v. Vinson NEW

MGMT 520 Week 5 Course Project Employment Law Issues (Apple) NEW

[psychbuilder]

State Supreme Court Ruling Expands 'Tarasoff' Duty for Washington State Clinicians

Psychiatric News Alert Originally released January 3, 2017 A Washington state Supreme Court decision appears to significantly broaden the duty that psychiatrists and other mental health professionals in that state have to protect and warn potential victims of violence by a patient under their care. In Volk v. De Meerleer, the Washington state Supreme Court expanded the so-called Tarasoff standard regarding a mental health professional's duty to protect and warn a third party of possible violence, asserting that the duty extends to any possible victim--even one that has not been specifically identified by the patient. The ruling applies only to clinicians in Washington state. Although other states could conceivably adopt a similar standard, the ruling does not establish a legal precedent outside of Washington. (It was a 1976 case, Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, that established the principle that a mental health professional has the duty to protect a third party, specifically identified by a patient, that he or she may be potential victim of violence.) Tarasoff has typically been interpreted to mean that the mental health provider owes a duty to the intended victim if the victim is identified or reasonably identifiable. But the new decision by the Washington state Supreme Court suggests that the duty is more expansive and that the provider may have an obligation to probe statements about violence to determine whether there is an intended victim and/or to infer intended victims from past sessions. The decision creates a new category of "medical negligence," rendering clinicians in Washington state potentially legally liable if it is determined that they should have known someone would be a victim of violence. APA signed on to an amicus brief with the Washington State Medical Society and six other groups saying that a lower court's finding that mental health professionals owe a duty of care to the general public, not just to reasonably identifiable third parties, places an unfair burden on clinicians. APA CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, M.D., M.P.A., said the ruling is a troubling one. "The court's ruling in Volk v. De Meerleer places clinicians in Washington state in a difficult position and could have detrimental effects on the patient-psychiatrist relationship," he said. "To the extent that a similar standard of liability could be adopted in other states, it should be of concern to psychiatrists and mental health professionals everywhere. APA will continue to follow developments in Washington state and continue to advocate for a fair and rational approach to Tarasoff duties." APA President Maria A. Oquendo, M.D., Ph.D., echoed those remarks. "Holding mental health professionals liable to third-party victims who were not  identifiable as targets of actual threats places an unreasonable burden on mental health professionals," she said. "This decision marks a significant departure from previous case law concerning Tarasoff duties. Leaving it to a jury to determine whether a mental health provider 'should have known' that a patient would be dangerous has a real potential to interfere with treatment of mental health patients." Marvin Swartz, M.D., chair of the APA Committee on Judicial Action, told Psychiatric News that the decision potentially undermines the traditional understanding of physician liability. "Expanding physician liability to a new doctrine of 'medical negligence' suggests that courts and juries might begin to adopt a liability standard akin to strict product liability rather than the established standards of medical malpractice," he said. "The likely result would be a serious undermining of the physician/patient relationship."

[fandom-trash-worth-it]

Violence Risk  Description In 1200 words, consider the case of Tarasoff v. Regen

Violence Risk  Description In 1200 words, consider the case of Tarasoff v. Regen

Violence Risk  Description In 1200 words, consider the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California to answer the following: 1. Discuss why the case is important to mental health clinicians. 2. Describe the violence risk assessment instruments a clinician might use to meet the requirements provided for in Tarasoff. 3. Discuss if a clinician should be held civilly liable for violent…

[nursingtermpapers]

Discuss why the case is important to mental health clinicians: Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California.

Discuss why the case is important to mental health clinicians: Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California.

Discuss why the case is important to mental health clinicians: Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California. Details:

In1,000 words, (3 pages not including title page) consider the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California to answer the following:

Discuss why the case is important to mental health clinicians. Describe the violence risk assessment instruments a clinician…