Ewing v. Northridge Hosp. Med. Ctr. - 120 Cal. App. 4th 1289, 16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 591 (2004)

Rule:

When the communication of a serious threat of grave physical harm is conveyed to the psychotherapist by a member of the patient's family, and is shared for the purpose of facilitating the patient's evaluation or treatment, it is irrelevant that the family member himself is not a patient of the psychotherapist. If a psychotherapist actually believes or predicts a patient poses a serious risk of inflicting grave bodily injury upon another, it is not material that the belief or prediction was premised, in some measure, on information derived from a member of the patient's family.

Facts:

The patient's father told the therapist that the patient had punched him and threatened to kill the new boyfriend of the patient's ex-girlfriend. The therapist believed that the patient met the criteria for involuntary hospitalization but persuaded him to voluntarily admit himself to the hospital. The patient was discharged the following day. On the next day, the patient killed the victim and then committed suicide. The plaintiffs, the parents of the victim, instituted a wrongful death action based on a therapist's failure to warn, as required by Cal. Civ. Code § 43.92. The hospital filed a motion for nonsuit based on grounds that the parents did not present expert testimony to establish the social worker’s liability for failure to warn under Civ. Code, § 43.92, and the parents did not satisfy the statutory exception to immunity under § 43.92 because they did not present any evidence that a threat of harm was directly communicated by the patient to the social worker. The trial court granted the motion for nonsuit. Plaintiffs appealed. 

Issue:

1. Was expert evidence required to establish the exception to immunity codified at section 43.92? 
2. Could the plaintiffs prevail in the present action, notwithstanding the fact that the threat of risk was communicated by the patient’s father, and not by the patient himself? 

Answer:

1) No. 2) Yes.

Conclusion:

The court reversed the judgment. The court held that the trial court erred in refusing, as a matter of law, to consider information relayed by the patient's father to the therapist. When the communication of a serious threat of grave bodily injury was conveyed to a psychotherapist by a member of the patient's immediate family and was shared for the purpose of facilitating and furthering the patient's treatment, the fact that the family member was not a patient of the psychotherapist was not material. Because there was no need for expert guidance on the "standard of care" for psychotherapists' statutory duty to warn, the trial court erred when it found that the parents could not establish their claim without presenting expert testimony. The mindset of a therapist could be evaluated by resort to common knowledge.