|
3647 The psychiatrist in charge of a psychotic patient involuntarily confined under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, who released the patient early for financial rather than medical reasons and without warning the patient or his family of the importance of taking prescribed medicine, or warning the police about the release of a dangerous person, owed a duty to a victim subsequently attacked by the psychotic patient; immunity under the Act applies only if the decision to release a patient is made by the psychiatrist in charge based on good faith belief that the patient is no longer a dangerCitationBRAGG v VALDEZ (Released Psychotic) 111 CA4 421 [See: W&IC 5000 etseq; CivC 43.92; Rowland v Christian (1968) 69 C2 108; Tarasoff v Regents 17 C3 425; Williams v State 34 C3 18; Heater v Southwood 42 CA4 1068, T/AT 3/96]
|
|
