Malpractice Issues Arising during Initial Contacts with the Psychiatric Patient

  • Seymour L. Halleck
Part of the Critical Issues in Psychiatry book series (CIPS)


The psychiatrist who meets the patient for the first time in the office, the hospital, the emergency room, or some other setting is immediately subject to the regulation of both statutory and malpractice law. Statutes may require the psychiatrist to report gunshot wounds and child abuse, or they may prevent the physician from giving narcotic drugs to a person who is suspected of being an addict. Statutory law also governs the process of voluntary and involuntary commitment to a mental hospital. The psychiatrist who decides to hospitalize an adult or child must be aware of the procedural requirements of the law and follow them assiduously. Frequently, statutory and malpractice regulatory factors are intertwined. Failure to follow statutory regulations with regard to civil commitment, for example, may subject the psychiatrist to a malpractice action. The main emphasis in this chapter is on malpractice risks which arise when the psychiatrist-patient relationship is initiated and the psychiatrist assumes a duty to the patient. Statutory law will be noted only as far as it has implications for malpractice. Discussion of statutory regulation of psychiatry with particular emphasis on civil commitment will be discussed in detail in Part II.


Emergency Room Suicidal Patient Medical Malpractice Civil Commitment Statutory Regulation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    E. C. Shortliffe, T. S. Hamilton, and E. H. Naroian, “The Emergency Room and the Changing Pattern of Medical Care,” New England Journal of Medicine 258 (1958): 20–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. R. Holder, Medical Malpractice Law ( New York: Wiley, 1975 ), p. 4.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maltempo v. Cuthbert, 504 F.2d 325 (5th Cir. 1974 ).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giallanza v. Sands, 316 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1975 ).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hurley v. Eddingfield, 59 N.E. 1058 (Ind. 1901 ).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. R. Holder, “Abandonment, Part I,” Journal of the American Medical Association 225, no. 9 (1973): 1157.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. C. Chayet, Legal Implications of Emergency Care ( New York: Appleton Century Crofts, 1960 ).Google Scholar
  8. 10.
    G. J. Annas, The Rights of Hospital Patients ( New York: Avon Books, 1975 ).Google Scholar
  9. 11.
    Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons, May—June 1963, p. 112.Google Scholar
  10. 15.
    A. R. Holder, “Treating a Minor for Venereal Disease,” Journal of the American Medical Association 214, no. 10 (1970): 1949.Google Scholar
  11. 16.
    Jones v. Smith, 278 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1973 ).Google Scholar
  12. 17.
    Luka v. Lowrie, 136 N.W. 1106 (Mich. 1912 ).Google Scholar
  13. 18.
    Bach v. Long Island Jewish Hospital, 267 N.Y.S.2d 289 (N.Y. 1966 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seymour L. Halleck
    • 1
  1. 1.University of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations