AVOIDING LIABILITY BLOG

The Alphabet – Some Hints On Avoiding Liability

July 2010

Avoiding Liability Bulletin | Liability Insurance | CPH & Associates

I thought I might have a bit of fun going back to my ABCs and that you might find some of these brief items helpful. Perhaps you can think of others. The thought here is to remind you of some of the basics that may help you avoid or minimize liability. This is not an exhaustive list. For any of the items listed here, further research can be done at CPH and Associates’ website, where the Avoiding Liability Bulletin can be found under “Legal Resources” and where the “Bulletin Archive” contains my previous articles categorized by topic.

A dvertise truthfully and without any misleading information. Sounds easy and basic, but many practitioners run afoul of this basic rule. Don’t hold yourself out to be an expert if you are not willing to be held to a higher standard.

B reak confidentiality (without the written authorization of your patient) only when required or permitted by law – such as child abuse or elder abuse reporting, communicating with a coroner or medical examiner investigating the death of your patient, or when compelled by a court order. It is important to know when this may be done without your patient’s express permission. It is also important that the patient is aware of some or all exceptions to confidentiality. How much to disclose is a matter of judgment unless otherwise dictated by law.

C hild abuse reporting – remember that there is generally more liability for not reporting than for reporting child abuse. Additionally, the report(s) must be made within a specific time frame. Failure to report is a crime in most if not all states.

D ocument records well. Sometimes your best defense is contained in your records. If you don’t document it, adverse parties may argue that it did not occur.

E xpertise – don’t call yourself an expert if you cannot support it and are not prepared to be held to the standards of an expert. Do a self-assessment of your education, training and experience before claiming expertise in a particular area.

F ees – be clear with fees and do not allow balances to accumulate. Think about forgiving the debt of a patient or suing him/her in small claims court before turning the matter over to collections. Fee disputes can lead to more serious allegations from patient or clients.

G uarantee of a cure – never guarantee a cure – either directly or indirectly. Sometimes testimonials can indirectly imply that you are guaranteeing a cure. Let patients know the limits of psychotherapeutic intervention.

H IPAA – know for certain whether or not you are a “covered entity.” Compliance with HIPAA regulations is not necessary, and sometimes problematic, if you are not a covered entity.

I nformed consent – what does this term mean in your state? For some, it simply means that certain specified disclosures must be made to the patient prior to the commencement of therapy or counseling. To others, it means that the patient must be informed, among other things, of the potential risks and benefits of services that are considered risky, experimental, or for which there exists little or no evidence of the efficacy of such treatment.

J oint legal custody – when treating a child, it is important to ascertain which parent has legal custody (as opposed to physical custody). In many states, either parent can consent to the treatment of the child where there exists a court order of joint legal custody. Some court orders may specify additional conditions and some state laws may require notification of the other parent where only one gives initial consent to treat. Be careful in this area of practice, since tensions run high in these kinds of cases. Know the law in your state with exactitude!

K ids – who is the holder of the privilege when you treat a minor of the age of six or sixteen? State laws vary, but in many states, the child is the holder of the privilege unless there is a court appointed guardian or conservator.

L iability – remember, there is liability in civil lawsuits for negligence, and liability in criminal cases – like insurance fraud, failure to report child abuse, or sex with patient (in many states). There is also liability with respect to the licensing board for violations of the licensing law (e.g., unprofessional conduct) or other laws.

M alpractice insurance – make sure you never make the mistake of letting it lapse. You may not receive notification of a renewal for a variety of reasons. The responsibility is yours. Also, remember, you are required to promptly notify the insurer, in writing, when you are aware that you may have done something, or not done something, or something may have occurred in your rendering of professional services that may lead to a claim.

N egligence – your failure to act (omission) or your acts that fall below the standard of care – generally defined as that level of care that would be rendered by the reasonably prudent practitioner of like licensure under similar circumstances. A single negligent act or omission is not typically cause for disciplinary action in most states. Gross negligence, however, is typically considered to be unprofessional conduct, which will be acted upon by licensing boards. Gross negligence may be defined as an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care.

Or al permission to release confidential information is generally not valid. State law usually requires a written and signed authorization. State law may also specify the particular elements to be contained in a valid authorization.

P rivilege – the privilege belongs to the patient. You need to protect it until the patient and the patient’s attorney direct you otherwise. The laws in each state vary with respect to how the privilege is to be claimed, asserted, or protected. Remember, there is a difference between privilege and confidentiality. If you cannot articulate what the difference is, do some research in the Avoiding Liability Bulletin Archives.

Q uasi- Judicial Immunity – In many states, the law provides immunity from liability for those who testify as expert witnesses for the court – such as child custody evaluators, conciliators, or mediators. Impartiality and neutrality of these expert witnesses are expected by the Court.

R enew your license in a timely manner. Renew your malpractice insurance in a timely manner. If you fail at either, you can have huge problems. You could be practicing without a license for a period of time, or you could be without liability insurance just at the time that a claim arises. Timing is critical. Do not rely on others to notify you. They may make a mistake – or the mail could get lost. Be in control of your career!

S uicide – remember, the death of your patient does not generally mean that your duty of confidentiality ends. Additionally, the psychotherapist-patient privilege is usually applicable, despite the death of the patient. The suicide of a patient may result in contact with the therapist or counselor by family members, the coroner or medical examiner, or others. Be prepared!

T ermination of treatment – termination by the therapist or counselor should usually be a process rather than something that is handled in one session or solely by sending a letter, or worse, by leaving a phone message. A bad termination may constitute abandonment of the patient. The issue of termination can be addressed in a helpful way in the practitioner’s disclosure form that is given to the patient at the outset of treatment.

U ninsured or underinsured – Make sure you have high limits of coverage, especially if you live in a state like California or New York, as opposed to Idaho or Iowa (kind of kidding!). Premiums are quite reasonable compared to other health professions, including psychology. DO NOT ALLOW YOUR POLICY TO LAPSE.

V iolence threatened by patients – it is important to know what the rights and duties are of the therapist or counselor with respect to making warnings to the intended victim and/or the police. Many practitioners have misunderstood the famed Tarasoff decision of the California Supreme Court – which did not, contrary to popular belief, create a “duty to warn.” Also, it is important to distinguish between what may be done to satisfy the applicable duty and what must be done in order to be “immune from liability.” This area of the law can be tricky, and state law varies in fine nuance.

W hen to say “no” – One of the best decisions a practitioner can make is to say “no” to a prospective patient that may be presenting with a problem outside the ken of the practitioner, or simply saying “no” to a prospective patient who makes the practitioner uncomfortable.

X perimental – Okay, I cheated a bit. If you perform treatment that is innovative or experimental in nature, or for which there is little or no clinicalevidence of the propriety of the treatment approach, be sure to obtain a signed informed consent from the patient – where you disclose, among other things, that the treatment is innovative or experimental in nature (or that there is little or no clinical evidence – or whatever the reality is), and the potential risks and benefits of treatment. I’m sure your insurer would prefer you perform more evidence-based services!

Y ou – sometimes it’s all about you — what is in your best interests, as opposed to the patient’s best interests – such as when you are sued by the patient or when a complaint is filed with the licensing board.

Z ealousness – Be zealous about your ethics and about continuing to learn and to grow as a professional. And please, zealously read the AVOIDING LIABILITY BULLETIN!

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Richard Leslie: Avoiding Liability Bulletin

"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!