“On October 27, 1969, Prosenjit Poddar killed Tatiana Tarasoff.”
The California Supreme Court began its 1976 landmark opinion with this sensational opening. What followed quickly became known as the “Tarasoff rule.”
What is the Tarasoff Rule?
The events leading to the decision were tragic.
According to Psychology Today, Poddar was an Indian graduate student at UC Berkeley. He had been seeing a psychologist about his obsession with Tatiana, who he was stalking. Poddar reportedly told the psychologist that he was going to kill Tatiana. The psychologist did not call Tatiana or her parents. He did, however, call the campus police. They detained Poddar but then released him. Poddar later confronted Tatiana in her kitchen and stabbed her to death with a kitchen knife.
Tatiana’s parents sued Poddar’s psychologist, alleging that he had a duty to warn Tatiana and them about Poddar’s threat.
They had an interesting theory. Tatiana’s parents were, in essence, asking the court to impose a duty on therapists to ignore patient confidentiality laws and warn potential victims of their patients.
California Law Creates a Duty to Protect
The California Supreme Court took the bait. It found that when a therapist determines, or should have predicted, that his patient presents a serious danger of violence to another, that therapist has a duty to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger.
Over the years, this has been referred to as the “duty to warn” or “the duty to protect.”
What the Tarasoff Rule Means for Medical Professionals
The court’s decision left medical professionals in a Catch-22. If they disclosed patient confidential information, then the patient could sue them. If they did not disclose patient confidential information and the patient harmed someone, then the victim could sue them.
Since the Tarasoff decision, twenty-two states have passed statutes that mandate reporting laws. Another 10 states have imposed a duty to warn under common law.
Not Texas.
Texas Takes a Different Approach
The Texas Supreme Court wrote its own landmark decision in Thapar v. Zezulka.
Dr. Thapar was the psychiatrist for Freddy Ray Lilly, who had a history of mental health problems. During one of Freddy’s stays at the hospital, Dr. Thapar wrote in his notes that Freddy “feels like killing” his stepfather Henry Zezulka, but that he “has decided not to do it but that is how he feels.” Dr. Thapar did not warn Henry or Henry’s wife (and Freddy’s mother) Lyndall.
Freddy killed his stepfather, Henry.
The Texas Lawsuit: Thapar v. Zezulka
Lyndall sued Dr. Thapar, alleging that he had a duty to warn them about Freddy’s threat. A Texas Court of Appeals agreed, citing the California Tarasoff rule.
An opinion from California was cited in a Texas case?
You know where this is going.
On appeal, the Texas Supreme Court noted, a bit disdainfully, that it had never adopted California’s Tarasoff rule.
It pointed out that Texas already had a law that addressed this very issue. Passed a mere 3 years after the Tarasoff decision, the law prohibited a mental health professional from disclosing a patient’s confidential information unless one of several exceptions applied.
Exceptions to the Tarasoff and Thapar v. Zezulka Decisions
One of the exceptions provided that when the professional determined that there was a probability that his patient would injure himself or others, the professional was allowed to disclose the information to medical, mental health or law enforcement personnel.
Allowed, but not required. And the disclosure was not to the intended victim.
The Texas Supreme Court reiterated that no statutory or common law duty to disclose existed.
Where there is no common-law duty, there is no common-law liability. Lyndall lost.
As for Poddar, whose actions started it all – he was found guilty of second-degree murder, served a mere 5 years, had his sentence overturned on appeal, and was deported to India where he married.
Hammerle Morris Can Help You Navigate Complex Legal Issues
Confidentiality, liability, and professional duties can create difficult legal questions, especially when state laws take very different approaches. Understanding how Texas law applies is critical before making assumptions based on rules from another state.
If you have questions about Texas law, litigation, liability, or planning for difficult family circumstances, contact the Hammerle Morris team for guidance.
Virginia Hammerle is a licensed Texas attorney whose practice includes estate planning, probate, guardianship, and litigation.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
