Ewing v. Northridge Hospital Medical Center
120 Cal. App. 4th 1289, 16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 591 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A psychotherapist's statutory duty to warn under Civil Code § 43.92 is triggered if the therapist actually believes a patient poses a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim, irrespective of whether the threat was communicated directly by the patient or by a patient's immediate family member for treatment purposes, and a jury may determine this actual belief without expert testimony.
Facts:
- Geno Colello had a 17-year romantic relationship with Diana Williams, which recently ended, and Williams began dating Keith Ewing.
- On June 21, 2001, Colello told his father that he was deeply hurt, wanted to die, and would get a gun to kill 'the kid' Williams was seeing (Keith Ewing) and then himself.
- Colello then punched his father in the face and asked to be taken to a hospital for help.
- Colello's father took him to Northridge Hospital Medical Center and informed the licensed clinical social worker, Art Capilla, about Colello's threat to kill Keith Ewing, stating he believed Colello was likely to carry out the threat.
- Capilla perceived Colello as angry, upset, and hostile, and requested security assistance during the intake interview, and asked Colello if he intended to kill Williams' new boyfriend.
- Capilla believed Colello met the criteria for involuntary hospitalization (danger to self) and persuaded him to admit himself voluntarily, but neither Capilla nor the hospital warned Keith Ewing or a law enforcement agency of Colello's threat.
- Colello was voluntarily admitted to the hospital on June 21, 2001, and discharged on June 22, 2001.
- On June 23, 2001, Colello murdered Keith Ewing and then committed suicide.
Procedural Posture:
- On June 23, 2001, Geno Colello murdered Keith Ewing.
- In February 2002, Cal and Janet Ewing (the Ewings) filed a wrongful death action in state trial court against Northridge Hospital Medical Center and Colello’s treating physicians, alleging professional negligence for failure to warn.
- Before trial, Northridge Hospital Medical Center informed the trial court of its intent to move for nonsuit after the Ewings’ opening statement, arguing that expert testimony was required to establish liability under Civil Code § 43.92 and that a direct communication of the threat from the patient was necessary.
- The trial court heard an opening statement before a jury was impaneled, and both parties submitted briefs on the issues.
- After the Ewings presented their opening statement, the trial court granted Northridge Hospital Medical Center’s motion for nonsuit on both grounds.
- The Ewings appealed the trial court’s grant of nonsuit to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District.
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 psychotherapist's statutory duty to warn under California Civil Code § 43.92 require the serious threat of physical violence to be communicated directly by the patient, and is expert testimony required to establish the psychotherapist's actual belief or prediction of danger?
Opinions:
Majority - Boland, J.
No, a psychotherapist's statutory duty to warn under California Civil Code § 43.92 does not require the serious threat of physical violence to be communicated directly by the patient, nor is expert testimony required to establish the psychotherapist's actual belief or prediction of danger. The court reaffirmed its holding from Ewing I, stating that when a serious threat of grave physical harm is conveyed to the psychotherapist by a member of the patient’s immediate family for treatment purposes, the source of the communication is not material. The central inquiry is whether the psychotherapist actually believed or predicted that the patient posed a serious risk of harm. The court further clarified that Civil Code § 43.92 was enacted to narrow the broader 'duty to warn' established in Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, which included liability if a therapist 'reasonably should have determined' a patient's dangerousness based on professional standards. Section 43.92 explicitly limits liability to instances where the patient has 'communicated to the psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim.' Since the statute focuses on the psychotherapist's actual belief or prediction, rather than adherence to a professional standard of care, expert testimony is not a necessary prerequisite. Jurors can ascertain a psychotherapist’s actual belief or prediction using common knowledge and circumstantial evidence, without needing scientific enlightenment. The court concluded that, viewing the facts most favorably to the Ewings, the evidence presented was sufficient for a jury to infer Capilla actually believed or predicted Colello would fulfill his threat, making the grant of nonsuit improper.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of a psychotherapist’s duty to warn in California, particularly regarding the interpretation of Civil Code § 43.92. It establishes two key precedents: first, that a direct communication from the patient is not required, broadening the circumstances under which a therapist may be held liable for threats conveyed by a family member; and second, that expert testimony is not mandatory to prove the therapist’s actual belief in a patient's dangerousness. This ruling potentially simplifies the litigation process for plaintiffs in failure-to-warn cases by removing the burden of requiring expert testimony on a therapist's state of mind, aligning the legal standard more closely with common understanding of a professional's actual knowledge. The decision reinforces the legislative intent of § 43.92 to shift the focus from a hypothetical 'should have known' standard to the more concrete 'actually believed or predicted' standard, while still ensuring protections for potential victims.
