Tarasoff Case

Tarasoff vs. Regents of University of California

1. HEALTH EDUC:
ACTIVITY NO. 6




1. Research the case entitled Tarasoff vs. Regents of University of California

Tarasoff vs. Regents (Tarasoff vs. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425, 131
Cal.Rptr. 14, 551 P.2d 334; 1976) was a Supreme Court of California case that established the
duty of psychotherapists to warn third parties when they believe their client poses an imminent
threat. The case has remained controversial since its ruling in 1976, as therapists must breach
confidentiality to warn potential victims, but it has not significantly altered psychotherapy, as
some believed it would. In fact, the ruling was extended in 2005 to include threats passed on to
psychotherapists by family members of the person in treatment.

The Case

Prosenjit Poddar, a University of California graduate student, developed an infatuation with
Tatiana Tarasoff, a woman he met at a dance class. The two briefly dated, but after Tarasoff
rejected him in favor of other men, Poddar became extremely depressed and
began stalking Tarasoff. He sought treatment from Lawrence Moore, a psychologist at
Berkeley’s Cowell Memorial Hospital.

In his seventh and final therapy session, Poddar told Dr. Moore that he intended to kill Tarasoff.
Dr. Moore diagnosed him with an acute paranoid schizophrenic reaction and notified campus
police, suggesting that Poddar be placed under observation in a psychiatric hospital. Police
detained Poddar but released him after he promised to stay away from Tarasoff, and Dr.
Moore’s supervisor ordered Moore not to request any further detention of Poddar. Neither Dr.
Moore nor the doctors who examined Poddar warned Tarasoff or her family about the threats
made against her.

Poddar did not return to therapy. He instead began stalking Tarasoff again, befriending and
moving in with her brother. On October 27, 1969, he attacked Tarasoff, first shooting her with a
pellet gun and then stabbing her to death. Tarasoff’s parents sued Dr. Moore and the
university, arguing that they should have been warned of the threat. Although the trial court
dismissed the case on the grounds that a doctor’s duty was to his or her client, rather than any
third party, it was appealed. In 1974, the Supreme Court ruled that mental health professionals
do have a duty to warn, though a strong dissent from Justice Clark argued that a duty to warn
compromised the confidentiality of psychotherapy and that clients might not seek treatment if
they knew that their stories might be shared with third parties.

2. Retrieve from http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/tarasoff-v-regents



2. Summary of Tarasoff
Tarasoff case involved a murder victim, Tatiana Tarasoff, who was killed by an alleged
acquaintance, Prosenjit Poddar. Poddar was a client of Dr. Lawrence Moore, who was employed
by the University of California, and had stated during a therapy session that he intended to kill
Tarasoff because she had rejected him as a lover. He was assessed as a danger and was held
briefly and released.
Shortly after his temporary confinement, he did indeed kill Tarasoff during an attack with a
pellet gun and knife. The victim’s parents sued the therapist, campus police, and everyone who
had contact with the case at the University of California (Board of Regents) for wrongful death.
They asserted that if the therapist knew that Poddar was indeed a danger and there was intent
related to his threat to his victim, that they had a duty to warn her. In the majority decision,
the court found that the “protective privilege ends where the public peril begins” [17 Cal.3d
425, 441 (1976)]. The decision had a significant impact on the legal requirements for a clinician
and certainly affected a client’s confidentiality. If, during the course of therapy, a clinician
assesses a client as a danger to someone, he or she has a duty and is legally compelled to warn
the intended victim (Levine & Wallach, 2002).

Retrieve from: http://www.socialworker.com/feature-articles/ethics-articles/ Confidentiality_%26_the_
Duty_to_Warn%3A_Ethical_and_Legal_Implications_for_the_Therapeutic_Relationship/


3. Identify the issue
• Duty to Warn and Duty to Protect in Mental Health.
• Confidentiality & the Duty to Warn to the potential victim.
• Ethical and Legal Implications for the Therapeutic Relationship.
• Ethical and legal imperatives of client confidentiality.
• Failure to detain a dangerous patient.
• Failure to warn a dangerous patient to Tatiana and her parents.
• Abandonment of a dangerous patient.
• Breach of primary duty and public safety.

3. 4. Reflection (no less than 100 words): Creativity showcase your response/opinion to the
above-entitled case and relate it to your future practice in the field of nursing.
Confidentiality and the duty to warn with regards to ethical and legal implications for the
therapeutic relationship for the case of Tarasoff vs. Regents of University of California. A wide
spreading mental health malpractice on 1969. Wherein a medical practitioner have obligations
to overview your client state physically, mentally and socially. Before hereby confirm his
dismissal, for public safety. Determine ethical guidelines as the client dispose dangerous or
confidential information. Must well inform to any potential victim or to any appropriate legal
authority to secure our profession. As a future nurse establishing relationship to client such as
rapport or giving a consent for the client awareness. Must clear to understand by the client that
we are not liable to any action he might do. To legally clear intentions for future use. I agree
the California Supreme Court stated protective privilege ends where the public peril begins its
better be safe and protect oneself to any evidence may presented which can make our
profession at risk. To reach over the legal authorities, possible victims and guardians must
properly inform as part of our obligations.