Ewing v. Goldstein
15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 864, 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6427, 120 Cal.App.4th 807 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A communication of a patient's serious threat of physical violence made to a therapist by the patient's immediate family member, for the purpose of advancing the patient's treatment, constitutes a 'patient communication' under California Civil Code section 43.92 and can trigger the therapist's duty to warn the potential victim.
Facts:
- Dr. David Goldstein provided therapy to Geno Colello for emotional problems, including issues concerning his former girlfriend, Diana Williams.
- In mid-June 2001, Colello became increasingly depressed after learning Williams was in a romantic relationship with a new man, Keith Ewing.
- On June 21, 2001, Colello told his father, Victor Colello, that he was considering causing harm to Ewing.
- Victor Colello contacted Dr. Goldstein and relayed his son's threat to harm Ewing.
- After hearing the threat from the father, Dr. Goldstein arranged for Colello to be voluntarily admitted to Northridge Hospital Medical Center for psychiatric care.
- On June 22, 2001, the hospital discharged Colello against Goldstein's advice to keep him hospitalized for further observation.
- On June 23, 2001, Colello murdered Keith Ewing and then committed suicide.
Procedural Posture:
- Cal and Janet Ewing, the victim's parents, sued Dr. David Goldstein in a trial court for wrongful death based on professional negligence.
- Goldstein moved for summary judgment, arguing he was immune from liability under Civil Code section 43.92 because the patient, Colello, had not directly communicated the threat to him.
- The trial court granted Goldstein's motion for summary judgment, agreeing that the statute required the threat to be communicated by 'the patient himself.'
- The Ewings appealed the trial court's judgment to the California 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 California Civil Code section 43.92 immunize a psychotherapist from liability for failing to warn a victim when the patient's serious threat of violence was communicated to the therapist by the patient's immediate family member rather than by the patient directly?
Opinions:
Majority - Boland, J.
No. A communication from a family member to a therapist, made for the purpose of advancing a patient’s therapy, is a 'patient communication' within the meaning of section 43.92. The court reasoned that the legislative intent behind the statute, which was enacted in response to Tarasoff v. Regents, was to balance patient confidentiality with public safety, not to create a loophole for therapists to ignore credible threats. A literal interpretation requiring the threat to come directly from the patient would lead to absurd results and undermine this purpose. The court analogized to the psychotherapist-patient privilege, where communications from family members made to assist in treatment are considered confidential communications. Therefore, if a communication from a family member is sufficiently important to be privileged, it is also sufficiently important to be considered a 'patient communication' that can trigger the duty to warn. This interpretation harmonizes the statute with its goal of protecting potential victims from serious, credible threats.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and expands the scope of a psychotherapist's duty to warn under California law, which is often referred to as the 'Tarasoff duty.' By rejecting a literal interpretation of Civil Code section 43.92, the court prevents therapists from using the source of a threat as a shield against liability. The ruling establishes that therapists must evaluate the credibility of threats relayed by immediate family members just as they would threats from the patient, prioritizing public safety. This holding reinforces the principle that the duty to warn is triggered by the substance and credibility of the threat, not the technical identity of the person communicating it, and will likely influence how therapists handle third-party information in their clinical practice and risk management.
