Bellah v. Greenson

California Court of Appeal
17 A.L.R. 4th 1118, 146 Cal. Rptr. 535, 81 Cal.App.3d 614 (1978)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

A psychiatrist does not have a duty to breach patient confidentiality to warn third parties about a patient's risk of self-inflicted harm or property damage, as the duty to warn established in Tarasoff is limited to threats of violent assault against others. Furthermore, the statute of limitations for medical malpractice begins to run when the plaintiff discovers the injury, which occurs upon the patient's death, placing them on inquiry notice.

Facts:

Tammy Bellah was an outpatient under the psychiatric care of Dr. Daniel Greenson.
During the course of treatment, Dr. Greenson concluded that Tammy was disposed to suicide and recorded this conclusion in his medical notes.
Dr. Greenson did not warn Tammy's parents, Melanie and Robert Bellah, about the seriousness of Tammy's condition or the likelihood that she would attempt suicide.
Tammy was consorting with heroin addicts in the Bellah home.
On April 12, 1973, Tammy committed suicide by taking an overdose of pills.
At the time of Tammy's death, her parents were temporarily living in New Jersey for the academic year.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiffs (Bellahs) filed a complaint for wrongful death and contract breach against Defendant (Greenson) in the superior court.
Defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint, alleging failure to state a cause of action and that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the trial court.
Plaintiffs appealed the order sustaining the demurrer to the Court of Appeal.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a psychiatrist have a legal duty to warn a patient's parents of the patient's suicidal tendencies, and is a wrongful death action alleging a breach of this duty barred by the statute of limitations if filed more than one year after the suicide?

Opinions:

Majority - Rouse

No regarding the duty to warn, and Yes regarding the statute of limitations; the court affirmed the dismissal of the action. The court reasoned that the duty to warn established in Tarasoff applies only when a patient threatens violent assault against a third party. Extending this duty to cases of self-inflicted harm (suicide) or property damage would inhibit psychiatric treatment by eroding the essential confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship. Regarding the statute of limitations, the court held that the one-year limitation period for medical malpractice applied. The parents were placed on inquiry notice at the time of Tammy's death in 1973, yet did not file suit until 1975. The court rejected the argument that the statute was tolled until they reviewed the doctor's notes, finding that the failure to disclose a professional opinion does not toll the one-year discovery period once the injury (death) is known.

Analysis:

This case significantly limits the scope of the Tarasoff doctrine in California. By distinguishing between the risk of violence to others and the risk of self-inflicted harm, the court prioritized the confidentiality necessary for effective therapeutic treatment over the potential benefits of involving family members in suicide prevention. The decision suggests that while a doctor has a duty to treat a suicidal patient with reasonable care, this duty does not mandate—and perhaps prohibits—breaching confidentiality to warn outsiders. Additionally, the ruling reinforces a strict interpretation of the statute of limitations in medical malpractice, establishing that a suspicious death puts survivors on immediate inquiry notice.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Bellah v. Greenson (1978)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"