Quick Summary: When no threat is verbalized, or no specific target can be identified, a nurse or other caregiver is not liable to a victim who later is harmed because the patient was not detained for treatment or the victim was not informed the patient was potentially dangerous.

   When a psychiatric patient verbalizes a threat of harm against a specific person, there is a duty to warn that person of the threat.  SUPREME COURT OF UTAH, 1998.

   The patient was a paranoid schizophrenic who stopped taking his meds and began to decompensate. He asked a police officer if he could borrow his gun to protect himself from people who were following him. The officer took him to a hospital for mental health evaluation.

   At the hospital a nurse interviewed the man and determined he was not a threat to himself or others. With the concurrence of a psychiatrist, who did not see the man personally, the man was released. His prescribed medications were increased, but no medication was actually administered while he was at the facility.

   Later that day he strangled his wife and assaulted his son. The wife’s parents sued the hospital.

   The Supreme Court of Utah ruled this case should be dismissed. Professionals in mental health have a legal duty to ignore medical confidentiality and warn an identified victim when a psychiatric patient has verbalized a specific intent to do the victim harm.

   On the other hand, as in this case, the court ruled where no specific threat of harm has been verbalized or no specific target identified, there are no grounds for a civil lawsuit after the fact if a patient does prove dangerous and someone is tragically harmed.

   The man was ruled incompetent to stand trial and was committed to a state hospital for treatment. When ruled able to stand trial two years later, he pleaded guilty and went to prison. Wilson v. Mental Health, 969 P. 2d 416 (Utah, 1998).

More from nursinglaw.com