Calderon v. Glick
31 Cal. Rptr. 3d 707, 131 Cal. App. 4th 224, 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6419 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A psychotherapist is not liable for a patient's violence against third parties unless the patient (or a family member for the purpose of therapy) communicates a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim. Furthermore, a psychotherapist generally owes no duty of care to non-patient third parties for professional malpractice concerning the patient's treatment, as evaluated by the Biakanja factors.
Facts:
- In March 2001, Reynoldo Rodriguez's blood tested positive for HTLV, leading him to develop a delusional belief that his former girlfriend, Maria del Rosario Calderon, had deliberately infected him.
- On June 28 and 29, 2001, Rodriguez sought mental health treatment at La Mer Medical group, where he was evaluated by psychiatrist Dr. Howard Click and licensed marriage and family therapist Dr. Thomas Wright.
- During his therapy sessions, Rodriguez reported delusional thoughts about Maria infecting him and recurrent thoughts of death, but he consistently denied any suicidal thoughts or intentions to harm Maria or anyone else, even when directly questioned by Dr. Wright and Dr. Click.
- Between July 30 and August 13, 2001, a member of Rodriguez’s family telephoned La Mer, stating Rodriguez was still quite anxious and obsessive regarding having a disease, which led to an increase in his medication dosage.
- Rodriguez's last visit to La Mer was on August 13, 2001, where he stated he was feeling better and had no thoughts of hurting himself.
- On September 5, 2001, Rodriguez entered the home of Maria’s family, where he shot and killed Esperanza Martinez, Ricardo Calderon, and Shantal Rios, and shot and wounded Lucia Calderon and Rigoberto Calderon.
- Rafael Calderon III was injured while escaping the attack by jumping out a second-story window; two days later, Rodriguez committed suicide.
Procedural Posture:
- Maria del Rosario Calderon, Ana Maria Calderon, Rafael Calderon, Sr., Lucia E. Calderon Vargas, Rafael Calderon III, and Rigoberto Calderon (appellants) filed a complaint in state trial court for wrongful death and personal injuries against Dr. Howard Click, Dr. Jerry R. Bruns-Garcia, and Dr. Thomas Wright (respondents), alleging causes of action for failure to warn and professional malpractice.
- Respondents filed motions for summary judgment in the trial court.
- The trial court granted respondents' motions for summary judgment, ruling that appellants lacked standing for professional negligence and that essential elements of the failure to warn cause of action were missing due to the absence of any communicated threat.
- Appellants appealed the judgment entered following the grant of summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does California Civil Code section 43.92 preclude liability for psychotherapists' failure to warn third parties of a patient's potential violence when the patient has not communicated a serious threat of physical violence against an identifiable victim? 2. Does a psychotherapist owe a duty of care to non-patient third parties for alleged professional malpractice in treating a patient, absent a direct relationship or specific threat, as evaluated by the Biakanja factors?
Opinions:
Majority - Yegan, J.
No, California Civil Code section 43.92 precludes liability for psychotherapists' failure to warn when the patient has not communicated a serious threat of physical violence against an identifiable victim, and no, a psychotherapist does not owe a duty of care to non-patient third parties for alleged professional malpractice in treating a patient, absent a direct relationship or specific threat, as determined by the Biakanja factors. The court affirmed the summary judgment for the psychotherapists. Regarding the failure to warn claim, Civil Code section 43.92 expressly limits psychotherapist liability to situations where the patient has communicated a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim. The evidence showed that Rodriguez, despite his delusions, consistently denied any intention to harm Maria or her family when directly questioned by Dr. Click and Dr. Wright. His family members also never communicated such an intent to the therapists. The statute was specifically enacted to narrow the liability established in Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (1976) and Hedlund v. Superior Court (1983) to only actual communicated threats, thereby abolishing liability for mere failure to predict potential violence. The court found no evidence that would allow a reasonable trier of fact to conclude Rodriguez had communicated such a threat. Regarding the professional malpractice claim, the court applied the Biakanja v. Irving factors to determine if the psychotherapists owed a duty of care to the third-party victims (appellants). These factors include the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, the foreseeability of harm, the certainty of injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury, the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct, and the policy of preventing future harm. The court found that the therapy was solely for Rodriguez's benefit, harm to Maria's family was not reasonably foreseeable given Rodriguez's denials and lack of past violence, the connection between the therapists' treatment and the injury was not sufficiently close (Rodriguez's mental illness existed beforehand), there was no moral blame for the therapists' good-faith treatment, and imposing such a duty would not significantly prevent future harm beyond the existing duty to patients. Therefore, no duty of care was owed to appellants for professional malpractice.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and reinforces the narrow scope of psychotherapist liability in California under Civil Code section 43.92, emphasizing that an actual communication of a serious threat by the patient (or a family member for therapy purposes) against an identifiable victim is a prerequisite for a duty to warn. It also confirms that psychotherapists generally do not owe a duty of care to non-patient third parties for alleged negligent treatment, aligning with the Biakanja factors which weigh heavily against such an expansive duty. This ruling protects psychotherapists from speculative liability while maintaining the patient-therapist relationship, but it places a high bar for victims seeking recovery based on a therapist's failure to predict or prevent violence without an explicit threat.
