Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege; Patient\u27s Dangerous Condition; Confidentiality; Legal Duty to Warn Potential Victim; Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California

In placing a legal duty to warn on the psychotherapist, the California supreme court followed the modern trend in tort law by recognizing the subordination of the patient\u27s interest in the confidentiality of the psychotherapist-patient relationship to both the public interest, and to what the court determines to be the patient\u27s own best interest. Under these confined circumstances the therapist acquires a limited right to disclose pertinent information to any person who may have a legitimate interest in his patient\u27s health.\u27 However, certain restrictive guidelines have been placed on the disclosure of such information. In Berry v. Moench, the Utah supreme court required that: (a) the therapist use good faith and reasonable care to tell the truth; (b) the information be reported fairly; (c) only necessary information be given; and, (d) publication be limited to those persons necessary for protection of the threatened interest