Duty to Warn and Protect: Not in Texas

Headnote

Contrary to the 1976 California Supreme Court decision in the renowned Tarasoff case, the Texas Supreme Court rendered a 1999 opinion (Thapar v. Zezulka) that mental health providers in Texas do not have a duty to warn and protect their clients' known and intended victims. This decision reflected the intent of the Texas court not to violate existing state confidentiality statutes that permit, but do not require, disclosure of intent to harm to medical or law enforcement personnel only. Other than the reporting of positive HIV results or suspected child abuse, mental health providers in Texas should proceed with caution in revealing confidential information to anyone for any reason, even when the limits of confidentiality are reached.

The 1976 ruling by the California Supreme Court in the now famous Tarasoff case (Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California) established a precedent in that state that mental health professionals have an obligation to warn and protect third parties when a client reveals an intent to harm (Corey, Corey, & Callanan., 2007). Although this ruling has jurisdiction only in California, a duty to warn and protect doctrine, as established by Tarasoff, is considered a national standard or mandate by many therapists (Corey, et.al., 2007).

Interestingly, Texas does not adhere to the precedent set by Tarasoff. To the contrary, the opinion in Thapar v. Zezulka, rendered by the Texas Supreme Court in 1999, stipulated that mental health providers do not incur a duty to warn and protect (Dalrymple, 1999; Grinfeld, 1999; Texas Supreme Court, 1999). Specifically, the opinion written for a unanimous court by Justice Craig T. Enoch stated that "we refrain from imposing on mental health professionals a duty to warn third parties of a patient's threats" (FNl) (Texas Supreme Court, 1999).

Issue of Confidentiality

The finding in Thapar v. Zezulka is based on the justices' reluctance to violate various state confidentiality statutes enacted by the Texas Legislature governing mental health professionals. In his opinion, Justice Enoch stated:

... we decline to adopt a duty to warn now because the confidentiality statute governing mental-health professionals in Texas makes it unwise to recognize such common-law duty (FN 14.17) (Texas Supreme Court, 1999).

Justice Enoch continued with:

The Legislature has chosen to closely guard a patient's...