BILL ANALYSIS
AB 733
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 733 (Nation)
As Amended June 5, 2006
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |77-0 |(May 16, 2005) |SENATE: |36-0 |(June 26, |
| | | | | |2006) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: JUD.
SUMMARY : Clarifies that a psychotherapist may fulfill the duty
to warn by taking reasonable actions "other" than notifying a
potential victim and law enforcement of a patient's threatened
violent behavior. Specifically, this bill restates that
reasonable efforts to communicate the threat to the victim and a
law enforcement agency discharges a psychotherapist's duty to
warn and protect.
The Senate amendments clarify that a psychotherapist may fulfill
the duty to warn by taking reasonable actions other than
notifying a potential victim and law enforcement of a patient's
threatened violent behavior.
EXISTING LAW provides:
1)That psychotherapists have immunity from liability for failure
to warn of violent behavior, except when a patient
communicates a serious threat of physical violence against a
reasonably identifiable victim or victims.
2)For a psychotherapist-patient privilege whereby the patient,
as holder of the privilege, may refuse to disclose or prevent
another from disclosing a confidential communication between
himself or herself and his or her psychotherapist.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill encouraged therapists to
contact a patient to assess whether the patient posed a serious
threat against an identifiable victim when a patient's threat
has been communicated to the therapist by a third party.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
AB 733
Page 2
COMMENTS : The sponsor, California Association of Marriage and
Family Therapists, states that this bill addresses a lack of
clarity in current law. Current law outlines one situation
where psychotherapists have a duty to a third party and the way
to discharge that duty. The sponsor maintains that the purpose
of this provision of current law was not to allow only one
method for discharging a psychotherapist's duty to warn and
protect a potential victim, but instead to provide an option
that would provide therapists with a clear immunity from
actions. However, both the Judicial Council jury instruction
(1-500 CACI 503), and Matthew Bender's California Forms of
Pleading and Practice state that a psychotherapist is negligent
if the duty is not discharged as specifically provided in the
statute. Accordingly, the sponsor states that this is necessary
to clarify that other reasonable actions may be taken to
discharge their duty. There is now no known opposition to this
bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Manuel Valencia / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0015193