Yes. The court decided that therapists have a special relationship with their patients that creates a duty to protect others from harm. Even though patient conversations are usually secret, that secrecy can be broken if a patient makes a credible threat to hurt a specific person. The court said that protecting people from serious danger is more important than keeping the secret in that situation. Therapists have to act like a reasonable professional would to keep others safe.

No. The judge who disagreed said this was the wrong decision. He argued that therapists can't perfectly predict what a person will do and don't have control over patients who can leave whenever they want. He believed the law about keeping patient information private is very important and that only lawmakers, not judges, should be able to create new exceptions to it. He thought the court was making up new laws, which is not its job.

Yes, doctors should try to keep others safe. When a doctor is treating someone's mental health, they have a special relationship with that person. This relationship means the doctor has some responsibility to stop their patient from hurting others if they think the patient might do that. If a doctor knows, or should know based on their professional training, that their patient might seriously hurt someone specific, they need to take reasonable steps to protect that person. This might mean warning the person who could get hurt, even if it means telling a secret the patient told the doctor. In this case, the court thinks the doctor should have done more to protect John's parents because of what John said and his history.

No, doctors shouldn't have to do this. Right now, the law in Vermont doesn't say that doctors need to stop their patients from hurting others or warn people who might get hurt. It's really hard to know if someone will actually be violent in the future. Doctors are supposed to focus on helping their patients, not worrying about other people. If we want to change this, it should be done by the people who make laws, not by judges. Also, there are laws that say doctors can't tell other people what their patients say to them in private. If we want to change that, the lawmakers should do it, not the judges.

Yes. A mental health professional has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect third persons from threatened physical harm posed by a patient. The court established that the therapist-patient relationship is a 'special relationship' sufficient to create an exception to the general rule that one has no duty to control the conduct of another. This duty exists regardless of whether the therapist has actual physical control over the patient, as in an institutional setting. The court rejected the argument that the difficulty of predicting violence negates the duty, holding that therapists are held to a professional standard of care, requiring them to act as a reasonably prudent member of their profession would under similar circumstances. The court also carved out a public policy exception to the physician-patient confidentiality privilege, stating that a threat of serious harm to an identifiable victim is an appropriate circumstance to waive the privilege in the interest of public safety, similar to exceptions for reporting child abuse or gunshot wounds.

No. Under existing Vermont law, a therapist has no duty to warn third parties. The dissent argued that the common law rule of 'no duty' should apply because a therapist treating a voluntary outpatient lacks the necessary 'power to control' the patient's actions, which is required for an exception. It emphasized the scientific difficulty of predicting violent behavior and stated the therapist's primary duty is to the patient. The dissent distinguished the landmark case of *Tarasoff*, noting that here the therapist made a good-faith judgment that the patient was not a threat. Creating a new duty to warn and a new exception to the statutory patient privilege, the dissent contended, is 'flagrant judicial legislation' and a matter that should be addressed by the legislature, not the courts.

Yes. A mental health professional has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect third persons from threatened physical harm posed by their patient. This duty arises from the special relationship between the therapist and the patient, which imposes a duty to control the patient's actions to prevent foreseeable harm. While there is generally no duty to control another's conduct to protect third parties, an exception exists where there is a special relationship giving one control over another's actions. The relationship between a clinical therapist and patient is sufficient to create such a duty, even in an outpatient setting. Once a therapist determines, or should have determined based on professional standards, that a patient poses a serious risk of danger to another, they have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect the foreseeable victim. This may include warning the potential victim, even if it means breaching patient confidentiality. The therapist's conduct must be measured against the standard of reasonable care under the circumstances. In this case, the trial court found the therapist's failure to warn the identified victims constituted a breach of this duty, given John's history and the inadequate information and consultation used in assessing the threat. The court's dismissal is reversed.

No. Under the current state of Vermont law, there is no duty for a mental health professional to control a voluntary outpatient or to warn third parties of potential harm. At common law, a person has no duty to control another's conduct or warn third parties of danger. While there is an exception when one has power to control another's actions, a mental health professional's power over a voluntary patient is limited. It is scientifically recognized that it is impossible to predict future violent behavior, and the professional's duty is to the patient, not others. The majority's reliance on Tarasoff and similar cases represents a new departure in the law that should be left to the legislature to decide. The statutory prohibition on disclosing confidential patient information should also be addressed by the legislature, not through judicial legislation. Given the current state of Vermont law, there is no duty to warn, and the lower court's dismissal of the complaint should be affirmed.

Peck v. Counseling Service of Addison County, Inc.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot