title: Court responses to Tarasoff statutes.
abstract: Twenty-three states have enacted Tarasoff statutes applicable to psychiatrists. Since the first such statute was enacted in California in 1985, a significant number of courts in states with this and similar statutes have reviewed Tarasoff-type claims. This article reviews courts' analyses in 76 such cases. There were five basic categories identified, including cases that (I) did not reference the statute; (2) referenced the statute, but did not analyze it; (3) referenced the statute, analyzed it, and found it created a duty; (4) referenced the statute, analyzed it, but found it did not create a duty; and (5) referenced the statute in the context of testimonial privilege. Review of these cases revealed that even in states that have Tarasoff statutes, clinicians must continue to rely on their clinical and ethical judgment, rather than statutory guidance, when considering potential protective disclosures or future drafts of protective disclosure statutes.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychiatry, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, and Medical Director, Alton Mental Health Center, Alton, IL, USA. drkach22@charter.net
authors.forename: Claudia
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Kachigian
authors.forename: Alan R
authors.initials: AR
authors.lastname: Felthous
mesh_terms: D002140:California; D003219:Confidentiality / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D003617:Dangerous Behavior; D017007:Duty to Warn / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D005555:Forensic Psychiatry / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D016365:Liability, Legal; D028642:Persons with Psychiatric Disorders / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000523:psychology; D011369:Professional-Patient Relations / Q000941:ethics; D011613:Psychotherapy / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D035521:Supreme Court Decisions; D014481:United States