Legal impact on therapist interacting with suicidal client
LEGAL BLAST
As more licensed therapists have been granted the right to have clients involuntarily transported for possible evaluation/commitment to psychiatric facilities, it is important for us to revisit a 2012 case of Peterson v. Reeves, et al.
Ms. Reeves sued her psychiatrist Mark Peterson whom she had been seeing in outpatient therapy. Reeves had been diagnosed with a schizo-affective disorder, a recurrent major depressive disorder, a bi-polar disorder, and psychotic disorders. In early August 2006, Reeves' brother took her to Parkridge Valley Hospital because of psychotic behavior. She was not hospitalized. The next day she attempted to jump from a balcony into an empty swimming pool. She was involuntarily committed to Northwest Georgia Regional Hospital as high risk for suicide. She was discharged to Horizons Crisis Group Home. Dr. Peterson began seeing her on August 23, 2005, and made the diagnoses stated above. Four days later, Reeves was discharged from Horizons. Two days after her discharge, Reeves poured gasoline over herself and set herself on fire.
Reeves filed a malpractice action against Peterson. Peterson argued that Georgia law requires a psychiatrist to have control over a patient before he can be held liable for "any resulting harm" and that because he lacked control (she was discharged from Horizons), he had no affirmative duty to prevent her suicide attempt.
The Court of Appeals disagreed with Dr. Peterson. They found that:
1. Every physician (including you) has a duty to bring to the exercise of his profession a reasonable degree of care and skill. This is the foundation for standard of care.
2. Peterson can be held liable if his treatment of Reeves fell below the standard of care and this failure proximately caused Reeves' injury.
« 3. Reeves should have been subjected to a suicide or self injury risk assessment, an adequate psychiatric evaluation, and consideration of hospitalization by Peterson before she was released by Horizons.
4. Peterson may also have been negligent in failing to be available for consultation, or to have another psychiatrist available when Reeves was discharged.
Although the Court clearly said it is not creating a new "duty to commit", a therapist who does not have a client with suicide ideation transported for evaluation is clearly at risk. Many licensed therapists now have the right to 1013 a client, and you need to be very careful and thoughtful when making that decision. The suicide or self-injury risk assessment and "adequate psychiatric evaluation" appears to be a condition precedent before the decision is made as to whether the therapist should begin the 1013 process. If the therapist does not conduct a self-injury risk assessment and an adequate psychological evaluation and does not 1013 the client, the therapist may be exposed to serious legal harm.
Howard