Immunities from Liability

September 2008

… While I have written about this topic before in a variety of contexts, it is worth repeating and consolidating. Therapists and counselors are, of course, concerned about avoiding liability. This is usually accomplished by acting in a competent manner and avoiding negligence – that is, avoiding actions or omissions that are below the standard of care of the ordinarily prudent practitioner of the same licensure under the same or similar circumstances. Ordinarily, a therapist or counselor is not “immune from liability,” as that term of art is generally understood, when he or she acts competently and appropriately. A patient or client may nevertheless decide to file a claim or suit against a practitioner in any case and the practitioner will need to defend against the allegations. This will typically involve the malpractice insurance carrier and may result in a settlement for nuisance value, a defense verdict, or a dismissal of the charges.

Under certain circumstances, however, the practitioner may be entitled to immunity from liability. This immunity is typically granted under state statute. It essentially means that if a lawsuit is filed, the practitioner will be entitled to have the case dismissed at an early stage of the proceedings, often upon a motion for summary judgment or a similarly titled motion made early in the legal proceedings. Perhaps the prime example of immunity statutes is found in the child abuse reporting laws of the various states. While I cannot speak for each state, the typical law essentially provides that a mandated reporter shall not have any liability (civil or criminal) for making a child abuse report that is mandated or authorized under the state statute. In California, the immunity from liability is absolute – it applies even where the mandated reporter was negligent in making the report, such as where the practitioner negligently (and suggestively) used an anatomically correct doll that resulted in a report being made.

California recently added a provision to its child abuse reporting law that extends the immunity to situations when reports are made by the mandated reporter where the knowledge or reasonable suspicion of child abuse or neglect is obtained outside of the reporter’s professional capacity or outside the scope of his or her employment. In these situations (in California), a child abuse report is not mandated – but rather, a report is permitted. The California immunity statute also provides, among other things, that no person required to make a child abuse report shall incur any civil or criminal liability for taking photographs of a suspected victim of child abuse or neglect without parental consent, or for disseminating the photographs with the required reports.

Finally, the statute also allows the mandated reporter to recover attorney’s fees (up to $50,000) and costs from the State when those fees and costs are incurred as a result of defending an action that is brought against the mandated reporter for making the required or authorized report – provided that the case is either dismissed by the court pursuant to the immunity statute or the mandated reporter prevails in the action, should it for some reason not be dismissed at an early stage of the proceedings.

As with child abuse reporting laws, elder abuse reporting laws and dependent adult abuse reporting laws (or similarly titled laws) typically contain immunity from liability provisions for mandated reporters who make required or authorized reports of known or suspected elder or dependent adult abuse. These laws may also provide immunity for taking photographs of suspected victims of abuse and for dissemination of the photographs with the required reports.

Another possible immunity from liability may be found in the statutes dealing with the patient who is an imminent danger of physical violence to another. As has been stated in other articles I have written for the CPH’s Avoiding Liability Bulletin, the laws (including case law) differ from state to state with respect to the duty of a therapist or counselor when a patient threatens physical violence against another. Some states have enacted statutes that are intended to provide practitioners with a zone of protection (“safe harbor”) in this nettlesome area of practice. Thus, in California, a law was enacted that provides immunity from liability for psychotherapists who make reasonable efforts to communicate a patient’s serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim when the communications are both to the victim and to a law enforcement agency.

While the general duty in California is based upon the famed California Supreme Court’s Tarasoff v. University of California decision of 1976, that duty does not require both of the actions specified above. The general duty is to take reasonable steps to protect the identified victim. That duty may include warning the victim, calling the police, hospitalizing the patient, or taking other appropriate action. Depending upon circumstances, one or more of these actions may be appropriate. While such action may not result in liability for the therapist because he or she may ultimately be found to have acted reasonably under the circumstances, the therapist in such case is not entitled to immunity from liability. To be within the zone of protection offered by the immunity statute, both actions specified in the statute must be taken. Massachusetts has an immunity statute that allows the psychotherapist to take any one of several actions specified in the law to attain immunity. Is there an immunity statute in your state regarding the dangerous patient issue? What must be done to attain immunity?

There may also be immunity statutes in some states that protect members of ethics committees or peer review committees of mental health professional associations. Generally, the immunity from liability will apply to acts or proceedings undertaken or performed within the scope of the functions of these committees, which are formed to maintain the professional standards of the particular mental health profession and which are authorized in the association’s bylaws. Immunity may only be granted if the member acts without malice and in a good faith or reasonable belief that the action taken by him or her is warranted by the facts. The exact conditions or limitations of the grant of immunity to peer review bodies or ethics committees will likely vary in fine nuance from state to state, as will its applicability (or non-applicability) to specific professions.

There may be a related statute that protects members of a peer review or ethics committee (and perhaps others who are present – such as a witness) from having to testify in a legal proceeding as to what transpired at a meeting attended by such member of a committee (or other person in attendance). Similarly, the records of the peer review or ethics committee may be protected by statute from discovery in many kinds of legal proceedings. Technically, these latter two protections related to ethics or peer review committees are privileges that are granted by statute rather than immunities from liability. Do these privileges exist in your state and for your profession?

People who provide information to professional societies (such as a professional association of mental health practitioners) may be entitled to statutory immunity from liability if the communication is intended to aid in the evaluation of the qualifications, fitness, character, or insurability of specified mental health practitioners. Likewise, immunity may exist for communications made by a person to a hospital, hospital medical staff, professional licensing board or professional school offering a qualifying degree program – if intended to aid as indicated above. As with other immunities, the exact conditions or limitations of the grant of immunity varies in fine nuance from state to state, as does its applicability.

Finally, a statutory immunity from liability may exist for certain professional association referral services, where members of the public are referred to members of the referral service. The immunity may apply to the association itself and to its agents, employees, or members. The immunity granted to the referral service (and others) may apply to acts of negligence or conduct constituting unprofessional conduct committed by a professional to whom a member of the public was referred. There likely will be limitations or conditions to such a grant of immunity, as well as exceptions to the grant of immunity itself. For example, the immunity may not exist if there has been a failure by the referral service (or its agents or employees) to disclose the nature of a known disciplinary action taken by a licensing board against the professional person to whom the member of the public was referred. My usual caution of variations on a state-by-state basis applies to this possible immunity!


Richard Leslie

"At the Intersection of Law and Psychotherapy" Richard S. Leslie is an attorney who has practiced at the intersection of law and psychotherapy for the past twenty-five years. Most recently, he was a consultant to the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT), where he worked with their various state divisions to develop and implement their legislative agendas. He also provided telephone consultation services to AAMFT members regarding legal and ethical issues confronting practitioners of diverse licensure nationwide. Additionally, he wrote articles regarding legal and ethical issues for their Family Therapy Magazine and presented at workshops on a variety of legal issues. Prior to his work with AAMFT, Richard was Legal Counsel to the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) for approximately twenty-two years. He was director of Government Relations for CAMFT, and as such was the architect of CAMFT’s widely regarded and successful legislative agenda. He represented CAMFT before the regulatory board (the Board of Behavioral Sciences) and was a tireless advocate for due process and fairness for licensees and applicants. He was a regular presenter at workshops and was consistently evaluated as CAMFT’s most highly rated presenter. He also sat with the CAMFT Ethics Committee and acted as their advisor on matters pertaining to the enforcement of ethical standards. Richard is an acknowledged expert on matters pertaining to the interrelationship between law and the practice of marriage and family therapy and psychotherapy. For many years, he taught Law and Ethics courses for a number of colleges and universities in their marriage and family therapy degree programs. While at CAMFT, he provided telephone consultation services with thousands of therapists in California and elsewhere for over twenty years. He is highly regarded for his judgment, his expertise, his direct style, and his clarity. Richard has been the driving force for many of the changes and additions to the laws of the State of California that affect MFTs. In 1980, he was primarily responsible for achieving passage of the "Freedom of Choice Law" that required insurance companies to pay for psychotherapy services performed by MFTs. Passage of that law allowed MFTs to earn a living, allowed them to better compete in the marketplace, and strengthened the profession in California by leading to a great increase in the number of licensees and CAMFT membership. Currently, about half of the licensed marriage and family therapists in the country are licensed in California. While at CAMFT, Richard was primarily responsible for, among other things, the successful effort to criminalize sex between a patient and a therapist. He was successful in extending the laws of psychotherapist-patient privilege to MFTs, thereby giving patients the same level of privacy protection as when seeing a psychiatrist or psychologist. He fought tirelessly and successfully for the right of MFTs to refer to themselves as "psychotherapists," to perform psychological testing services, to be appropriately reimbursed by California’s Victims of Crime Program, and to be employed in county mental health agencies throughout California. Richard was admitted to the Bar in New York (1969) and in California (1973). While practicing in New York, he served as a public defender, and later, as an Assistant District Attorney. Shortly after moving to California, he worked for the San Diego County Human Relations Commission as their Law and Justice Officer. While there, he worked successfully to achieve greater racial diversity in the criminal jury selection system and to expose and stop police abuse. For such work with that agency, he was the recipient of the Civil Libertarian of the Year Award by the San Diego Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Have Questions? click here, We’re happy to help!