Emerich v. Philadelphia Center for Human Development, Inc. case brief summary
720 A.2d 1032 (Pa. 1998)
SYNOPSIS: Appellant, relative of the deceased, challenged the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (Pennsylvania), which granted appellees, healthcare providers and physicians, judgment on the pleadings, holding that appellees had no duty to warn the deceased of a patient's threat to harm her.
OVERVIEW: Appellees, healthcare providers and physicians, treated a patient with homicidal ideations to appellant's deceased. The patient informed appellees that he was going to kill the deceased. Appellees conducted a therapy session, and the patient later stated that he would not hurt the deceased. The patient later killed the deceased. Appellant brought a wrongful death action against appellees, arguing that they had a duty to warn the deceased of the patient's threat. The trial court granted appellees judgment on the pleadings, and appellant challenged the ruling.
HOLDING:
The court held that because appellees had a special relationship with the patient, they had a duty to inform the deceased about the patient's threat, after it was specifically made.
ANALYSIS:
The court determined that appellees were in the best position available to inform the deceased, and that the duty to warn would not violate the psychotherapist-patient privilege. The court reversed the trial court, and remanded for further proceedings.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the judgment of the lower court, and held that appellees, healthcare providers and physicians, had a duty to warn a third-party about threats made to her by a patient treated by appellees. The court concluded that the duty did not violate psychotherapist-patient privilege, and remanded for further proceedings.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
The best place for complete law school case briefs and law-related news. Want to advertise or post sponsored content? contact us at mrmetropolitan@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Ins and Outs of Class Action Lawsuits: A Comprehensive Guide
Sometimes, you may buy a product only to find it defective. To make it worse, your search for the product reveals mass complaints. You can ...
-
Class 1: Elements of Fundamental Value: Present Value, Future Value, Net Present Value: Elements of Fundamental Value (38) One year : ...
-
I can help you land in the top 10% of your law school class. Imagine, how your life would be different if you were in the top 10% o...
-
Case Brief: Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. 489 U.S. 141 (1989) Facts: In this case, Bonito Boats, Inc. (Bonito) and Thunder...
No comments:
Post a Comment