Perreira v. Colorado-a Psychiatrist's Duty to Protect Others
| Publication year | 1989 |
| Pages | 2323 |
1989, December, Pg. 2323. Perreira v. Colorado-A Psychiatrist's Duty to Protect Others
A closely divided Colorado Supreme Court recently reversed a Court of Appeals opinion which involved issues related to negligent release and a psychiatrist's duty to protect third parties.(fn1) In Perreira v. Colorado, the Court of Appeals reversed a $150,000 judgement entered on a jury verdict in favor of the surviving wife of a police officer.(fn2) The court held that the officer was not in the foreseeable zone of danger because a mentally ill person had made no specific threats against particular persons during his period of treatment at the Fort Logan Mental Health Center. The court reasoned, therefore, that the psychiatrist did not have a legal duty to the officer. Such reasoning was held by a 4-3 majority of the Colorado Supreme Court to be an unduly restricted standard.
The plaintiff had filed a wrongful death action against the State of Colorado, the Fort Logan Mental Health Center and the staff psychiatrist responsible for the care and treatment of Seth Buckmaster, a mentally ill person certified for short-term treatment at Fort Logan. The plaintiff alleged negligence on the parts of Fort Logan and the staff psychiatrist in releasing Buckmaster from his involuntary hospitalization. She also alleged that their negligence was the cause of the shooting
This article discusses the decision in Perreira and its application in the treatment of involuntarily and voluntarily hospitalized psychiatric patients in Colorado.
In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court reviewed the basic principles of tort law concerning a psychiatrist's duty of due care to protect others from potential violent acts by a mentally ill patient. The opinion also provided a comprehensive review of cases dealing with involuntarily hospitalized patients. The court cited cases supporting the duty of the treating psychiatrist to protect members of the public from violent acts committed by such patients following their release from an involuntary commitment.(fn3) These cases used a "professional" standard of care in their requirement that psychiatrists
use reasonable care, in accordance with the knowledge and skill ordinarily possessed by psychiatric practitioners under similar circumstances, to protect potential victims from future acts of violence by the patient.(fn4)
The court reasoned that the patient's propensity for violent conduct did not require specific threats or overt violent behaviors in order to trigger the psychiatrist's duty to protect third parties. A patient may be assessed by a psychiatrist, using accepted diagnostic criteria, to be disposed to commit violent acts against others.(fn5) Under such circumstances, the court concluded the psychiatrist would have a duty to take reasonable precautions, consistent with acceptable psychiatric standards of practice, to protect potential victims from the patient's potential violent behavior. The court suggested that extending the term of the patient's involuntary commitment or placing appropriate conditions or restrictions on the patient's release were possible ways the psychiatrist could discharge the duty to protect. The standard to be used by the psychiatrist in such release decisions was one of "due care" (as measured by a "professional" standard of care), which was discussed in several cases on point.(fn6)
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court for a new trial
To continue reading
Request your trial