Ewing v. Goldstein 15 Cal Rptr. 3d 864 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) is a landmark court case that extended California

California

California is a state located on the West Coast of the United States. It is by far the most populous U.S. state, and the third-largest by land area...

 mental health professional

Mental health professional

A mental health professional is a health care practitioner who offers services for the purpose of improving an individual's mental health or to treat mental illness. This broad category includes psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, clinical social workers, psychiatric nurses, mental health...

's duty to protect

Duty to protect

The duty to protect is the responsibility of a mental health professional to protect patients and others from foreseeable harm. If a client makes statements that suggest suicidal or homicidal ideation, the clinician has the responsibility to take steps to warn intended victims, and if necessary,...

 identifiable victims of potentially violent persons, as established by Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California

Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California

Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 , 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...

, to include acting upon communications from third parties that indicate a possible threat.

Facts

In 2001, former police officer Gene Colello received treatment from David Goldstein, after breaking up with his ex-girlfriend, who had become involved with Keith Ewing. During the course of treatment, Colello told his father about considering harming Ewing, which the father claims to have relayed to Goldstein, the hospital emergency social worker and the attending/admitting Psychiatrist. There was never any evidence that he did tell Goldstein or anyone else. Goldstein encouraged voluntary hospitalization but did not warn Ewing or law enforcement officials of Colello's hostile intentions, because of not having the information that the father withheld. When Colello was released, he murdered Ewing and then committed suicide.

Ruling

The court ruled that the case should be heard by the lower court. They determined that the duty to protect was not sufficiently discharged by initiating involuntary commitment and could be discharged only by warning the identifiable victims.

Implications

This case created a clear distinction between the duty to protect and the subordinate duty to warn

Duty to warn

A duty to warn is a concept that arises in the law of torts in a number of circumstances, indicating that a party will be held liable for injuries caused to another, where the party had the opportunity to warn the other of a hazard and failed to do so....

and made communications by a third party indicating threatening statements equivalent to statements made directly by that person.