Tarasoff | search
Click here to view Tarasoff news from 60+ newspapers.
Bookmark or Share- Duty to Warn, Duty to Protect - SocialWorker.comThe Tarasoff case imposed a liability on all mental health professionals to protect a victim from violent acts. The first Tarasoff case imposed a duty to warn the victim, whereas the second Tarasoff case implies a duty to protect (Kopels & Kagle, 1993).
- Psychology Today: Health, Help, Happiness + Find a TherapistPsychology Today: Health, Help, Happiness + Find a Therapist
- The Duty to Protect: Four Decades After TarasoffFour decades have passed since the Tarasoff ruling, yet a clear and ubiquitous method for its application has not been established. Discrepancies and vagueness between states, as well as between providers, regarding how and when to apply the duty to protect still exist.
- Court Expands Tarasoff Duties in Washington StateCourt Expands Tarasoff Duties in Washington State. The ruling, which applies only to clinicians in Washington state, creates a new category of “medical negligence,” rendering clinicians potentially liable if it is determined that they should have known someone would be a victim of violence.
- Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California - WikipediaTarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 ( Cal. 1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient.
More
