Self-Assessment Test in Law and Ethics The Dangerous ... - CAMFT

This course meets the qualifications for hours of Continuing Education Credit in Law and Ethics
for LMFTs and LCSWs as required by the California Board of Behavioral Sciences
Self-Assessment Test in Law and Ethics
The Dangerous Patient and the Therapist’s Duty
Conceived of and written by Richard S. Leslie, J.D. in collaboration with CAMFT (Provider # PCE 50)
You keep this test. Send the completed one-page answer sheet to CAMFT.
All questions are based upon California Law and assume that the therapist is a California Licensed MFT or CSW.
True False
1. MFTs and other psychotherapists are required by the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act to
take reasonable action to prevent harm to intended victims when they have, or pursuant to the
standards of their profession should have, a reason to believe that their patients intend to inflict
imminent violence upon reasonably identifiable others.
2. The famed Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California decision by the California Supreme
Court (1976) did not establish a specific duty for therapists to make a reasonable effort to warn
intended victims of their patient’s threatened and imminent physical violence.
3. MFTs and other psychotherapists are permitted, but are not required, to break confidentiality when
they reasonably believe that a patient, as a result of his or her mental or emotional condition, is a
danger to the property of another and they believe that disclosure is necessary to prevent the
threatened danger.
4. MFTs and other psychotherapists, according to the Tarasoff decision referenced-above, are
required to set aside concerns about confidentiality when their patients threaten imminent and
serious physical harm to others.
5. When a therapist decides to make a warning to an intended victim, consistent with the Tarasoff
decision, he or she must take care to reasonably limit the amount of confidential information
released to the victim.
6. California law (Section 43.92 of the Civil Code), enacted after the Tarasoff decision, essentially
expands the duty created in Tarasoff to protect not only the intended victim, but also those who are
deemed to be reasonably foreseeable victims.
7. Following the Tarasoff decision (1976), a later case extended the so-called “duty to warn” to
include cases of self-inflicted harm (e.g., suicide).
8. California law requires MFTs and other psychotherapists to inform their patients, in writing and
prior to the commencement of therapy, of the therapists’ right to break confidentiality in the event
that the patient threatens imminent violence against an identifiable other.
9. If a patient informs his or her therapist that he/she has tested positive for AIDS, the therapist is not
under a duty to report that fact to anyone.
10. If a patient informs his or her therapist that he/she has tested positive for AIDS and that he/she is
continuing to have consensual sex with his/her partner, the therapist is not under a duty to report
that fact to anyone.

11. The Tarasoff decision relieved therapists of a duty to predict dangerousness, and only required the
therapist to warn the intended victim when the patient directly communicated a serious and
imminent threat to the psychotherapist.
12. If a patient threatens a therapist with physical violence, the therapist is prohibited from informing
the police and letting them know of the patient’s threat.
13. A therapist is told by the patient that the patient had killed someone two years earlier. The therapist
is not under a duty to disclose this information to anyone.
14. A therapist is treating a police officer for depression. The therapist is told by the patient that he/she
been thinking about committing suicide. The therapist must break confidentiality.
15. If a patient communicates to his/her therapist a serious threat of imminent physical violence against
a readily identifiable other, the therapist can gain immunity from liability by making a reasonable
effort to warn the victim or by arranging for the hospitalization of the patient.
16. If a patient communicates to his/her therapist a serious threat of imminent physical violence against
a readily identifiable other, the therapist is permitted to involuntarily hospitalize the patient and is
not required to notify the police.
17. Section 43.92 of the Civil Code was enacted after the Tarasoff decision and was intended to codify
the duty created in the Tarasoff decision.
18. Because of Section 43.92 of the Civil Code, therapists are no longer required to take reasonable
steps to protect an intended victim unless the serious threat of imminent physical violence is
directly communicated from the patient to the therapist.
19. When a therapist determines that his or her patient presents a serious and imminent danger of
physical violence to another, the therapist is permitted, but not required, to take reasonable steps to
protect the intended victim, such as warning the intended victim, notifying law enforcement, or
taking such other steps as may be necessary to avert the danger.
20. In order for the Tarasoff duty to apply, the victim must be specifically named by the patient or by a
family member.
21. If a patient tells his therapist that his (the patient’s) wife told him that she is going to kill the
patient’s lover, the therapist is required to take reasonable steps to prevent the threatened violence.
22. If a patient threatens violence, but does not reveal the identity of the victim, the therapist is
permitted to take reasonable steps to prevent the threatened danger even if it involves breaking the
patient’s confidentiality.
23. If a therapist fails to comply with his/her duty to protect an intended victim against the threats of
the patient, he/she can have liability not only to the intended victim, but to reasonably foreseeable
others who may be injured at the time the violence is perpetrated.
24. Therapists are generally duty bound to warn not only the intended victim, but others who are
deemed to be reasonably foreseeable victims.
25. When a therapist makes a warning to the intended victim pursuant to his/her duty under either the
Tarasoff decision or Section 43.92 of the Civil Code, he/she is permitted to let the victim know
his/her name, that he/she is treating the patient as a mental health practitioner, and that he/she
believes that the patient’s threat is serious and that the danger is imminent.
NOTICE
Copyright law prohibits the copying, reproduction or transmission in any form or by any means, whether mechanical,
photographic or electronic, of any portion of this self-assessment test or the answer sheet that will be mailed to participants,
without the express written permission of Richard S. Leslie. All rights reserved.
© Richard S. Leslie, 2005

RECEIVE TWO HOURS OF CONTINUING EDUCATION CREDIT BY SELF-STUDY
Self-Assessment Test in Law and Ethics
The Dangerous Patient and the Therapist’s Duty
Conceived of and Written by Richard S. Leslie, J.D., in collaboration with CAMFT
BBS Approved Provider # PCE 50
A. Answer True or False (T or F)
COMPLETE ANSWER SHEET – SEND CHECK
1 6 11 16 21
2 7 12 17 22
3 8 13 18 23
4 9 14 19 24
5 10 15 20 25
B. Please provide the following information: (Please Print)
Name
CAMFT Member # License #
Additional License / Certification #
Mailing Address
Telephone Number ( ) Fax Number ( )
E-mail Address
C. Send this completed answer sheet to CAMFT with a check for $35 made payable to CAMFT. YOU
KEEP THE TEST.
We will send you verification of course completion, an evaluation form, and the answers.
California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists
7901 Raytheon Road
San Diego, CA 92111-1606
Phone (888) 892-2638 · Fax (858) 292-2666