ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Kentucky Blogs -> Kentucky Cases

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Kentucky

: Kentucky Cases

TORTS - KRS 201A.400, mental health professional's duty to warn victim of threats: Lois DeVasier (Administratrix of the estate of Kenneitha Crady) v. William James, M.D. (SC 2/19/2009)

By Michael Stevens

ADVERTISEMENTS
Lois DeVasier (Administratrix of the estate of Kenneitha Crady) v. William James, M.D.
2007-SC-000130-DG 2/19/2009
2007-SC-000365-DG 2/19/2009

Opinion by Justice Venters; all sitting.

Kenneitha Crady was murdered by her boyfriend, Rene Crissell, shortly after he had been seen by Dr. James. Crady?s estate brought suit against Dr. James alleging he breached the duty to warn Crady imposed by KRS 202A.400. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. James. The Court of Appeals affirmed, interpreting the statute to require that the threat triggering the duty to report be made directly to the mental health professional, not through an intervening agent, such as a nurse. Since there was no evidence that Cissell had directly expressed a threat to Dr. James, the Court of Appeals held that Dr. James was entitled a directed verdict.

The Supreme Court, affirmed but on different grounds. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals construed the word ?communicated? as used in the statute too narrowly and ruled that the statute includes threats communicated by a patient to the mental health professional indirectly through agents who have a duty to relay the patient?s information. The Court concluded that even though Dr. James knew of previous acts of violence by Cissell towards Crady, there was no evidence that Cissell communicated an actual threat to inflict harm upon Crady by physical violence. The Court rejected the estate?s argument that the information communicated to Dr. James demonstrated that Cissell himself constituted a ?threat? to Crady that would trigger the statutory duty to warn. The Court noted that the legislature, by the language of the statute, showed they intended that the patient communicate a threat towards an identifiable person, not that they simply are a threat.

Full post as published by Kentucky Cases on September 27, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0134 secs (new cache)