nihilator --
Given the shortage of time, let's get right to the point.
The key to the answer to your question is found in Article 7 of the
California Evidence Code. This Article is the part of the Code that
deals with the psychotherapist-patient privilege. Here is a link to
its complete text:
California: Legislative Information: California Evidence Code: Article 7
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=01001-02000&file=1010-1027
Your hypothetical question indicates that a person is claiming a
privilege related to a conversation with a "social worker." The first
hurdle to reaching an answer is determining whether that social worker
is covered by Article 7 of the Code.
"Section 1010:
(c) A person licensed as a clinical social worker under Article 4
(commencing with Section 4996) of Chapter 14 of Division 2 of the
Business and Professions Code, when he or she is engaged in applied
psychotherapy of a nonmedical nature."
The question doesn't provide information sufficient to determine
whether this qualification has been met by your hypothetical "social
worker," so I would guess that you are allowed to assume that the
social worker is qualified under the Code. If you are not, you may
want to look at (or at least cite) the relevant section of the
California Business and Professions Code, which may be found here:
California Business and Professions Code: Division 2, Chapter 14,
Article 4, Sections 4996-7
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=04001-05000&file=4996-4997
Whether the social worker's relationship with the privilege claimant
falls with the scope of "applied psychotherapy of a nonmedical nature"
would be a factual question for a judge's determination, and your
question doesn?t provide information sufficient to suggest an answer.
Given the wording of your question and the one that I previously
worked on with you, I expect that the important part of it for your
purposes is the statement that Joe says that he is planning on killing
his supervisor at work, when in fact he doesn?t have a job.
The California Evidence Code contains a provision that directly
applies to such a situation. Among several narrowly crafted
exceptions to the availability of the psychotherapist-patient
privilege in California is this one, found in Section 1024 of Article
7 of the Code (linked above):
"§1024 Exception: Patient dangerous to himself or others
There is no privilege under this article if the psychotherapist has
reasonable cause to believe that the patient is in such mental or
emotional condition as to be dangerous to himself or to the person or
property of another and that disclosure of the communication is
necessary to prevent the threatened danger. "
The answer to the question of whether Joe could successfully assert a
psychotherapist-patient privilege in this situation would depend on
whether a court would find on all the facts presented that Joe was
indeed sufficiently dangerous to "the person or property of another."
On the bare-bones facts presented here, Joe (or his attorney or
social worker) would presumably argue that since there was no
"supervisor" (because there was no "job"), there was no threat to "a
[specific] person" and thus no need for the communication to be
disclosed "to prevent the threatened danger."
As for citations of authority related to this exception, the Discovery
Case Outline I provided in my previous answer lists the following
cases:
"PROTECTION OF OTHERS [Evid.C.1024]
Menendez v. Superior Court (1992) 3Cal.4th 435
People v. Wharton (1991), 53 Cal.3d 522, 555
San Diego Trolley, Inc v. Superior Court (2001), 87 Cal.App.4th 1083
[Narrow exception limits disclosure to communications that trigger
conclusion that disclosure necessary to prevent harm (People v.
Wharton ); When factual predicate gone[danger], communication not
protected? p.1092]
People v. Clark (1990)
Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425, 441 "
Findlaw.com: Discovery Case Outline: Physician-Patient Privilege
http://californiadiscovery.findlaw.com/PHYSICIAN_PATIENT_PRIVILEGE.htm
(If you haven't already done so, I suggest that you register with
Findlaw.com (for free), which will give you convenient online access
to the text of many California appellate court decisions.)
Additional Information
The San Diego Trolley case (listed above) contains an especially
interesting and relevant ruling, so I have provided a link to the
court's opinion below. Read the case yourself and come to your own
conclusion, but it appears that if Joe had made his threat back when
he had a job, so that the danger was real, the conversation would have
disclosable under the Exception to prevent the danger to the
supervisor. Interestingly, according to the San Diego Trolley court,
the conversation would still be disclosable in other, later
proceedings, even though there was no longer a real threat to anyone.
Here's the link:
San Diego Trolley, Inc. v. Superior Court (Kinder) (2001) 87
Cal.App.4th 1083, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 476
http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/caapp4th/87/1083.html
Search Strategy:
I used the resources I had provided in my earlier answer to find the
relevant provision of the California Evidence Code and the case
citations from the California Discovery Case Outline.
Based our "conversation" on your earlier question, I am confident that
this is the information you need to prepare to write up your own
answers to the questions you have asked. As usual, if anything is
unclear, please ask for clarification before rating the answer.
markj-ga |
