Bellah v. Greenson

California Court of Appeal · Torts

TortsNegligencePsychiatrist dutyWrongful deathStatute of limitationsdemurrerwrongful deathpsychiatrist-patient relationship

Facts

Melanie and Robert Bellah sued psychiatrist Daniel Greenson after their daughter Tammy died from a self-inflicted overdose on April 12, 1973. Tammy had been under Greenson's psychiatric care, and the complaint alleged that Greenson knew she was likely to attempt suicide, failed to take preventive measures, failed to warn plaintiffs of the seriousness of her condition, and failed to tell them she was associating with heroin addicts in their home. Plaintiffs filed suit on April 11, 1975, asserting negligence and negligent performance of an alleged contract to care for Tammy. Plaintiffs also sought damages for thefts from their home allegedly committed by the addicts.

Issue

Did the complaint state a viable cause of action against the psychiatrist for Tammy's suicide or for failing to warn her parents, and, if so, was the action nevertheless barred by the statute of limitations? More specifically, did Tarasoff require disclosure of confidential information to prevent a patient's suicide or property damage, and did Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 bar the suit filed nearly two years after Tammy's death?

Rule

To state a negligence claim, a complaint must allege a legal duty, breach, and causation, and whether a duty exists is primarily a question of law. A psychiatrist-patient relationship may create a duty to take preventive measures when the psychiatrist knows the patient is likely to attempt suicide, but Tarasoff requires disclosure of confidential communications only when necessary to avert danger of violent assault to others, not self-inflicted harm or mere property damage. Under the pre-1975 version of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5, the one-year limitation period runs from discovery of the injury and is not tolled by the physician's nondisclosure.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Sacramento, Nora Kim saw Dr. Elias Mercer, a psychiatrist, for weekly office visits. Nora told Dr. Mercer she had recently gathered pills for a planned overdose, and his notes reflected that he believed she was likely to attempt suicide; two days later, she died by overdose after Dr. Mercer took no additional action.

If Nora's estate alleges negligence against Dr. Mercer, which is the strongest argument that the complaint survives a demurrer on duty grounds?

Explanation. The majority held that, even in the outpatient setting, allegations of a psychiatrist-patient relationship, the psychiatrist's knowledge that the patient was likely to attempt suicide, and failure to take appropriate preventive measures are sufficient at the pleading stage to state a negligence claim. The adequacy of the measures is a factual matter for later development, not a prerequisite to surviving demurrer. (Derived from Bellah v. Greenson (n.d.).)