Geffner v. Board of Psychology (Feb. 28, 2024, B322991) __ Cal.App.5th __ [2024 WL 834986]
After two brothers (both minors) expressed suicidal and homicidal ideations, their mother asked Dr. Robert Geffner, a psychologist, to evaluate them. Both said they would act on these thoughts if they saw their father. Dr. Geffner recommended that the brothers be kept away from their father until further treatment and a risk assessment was completed. Dr. Geffner also said that the father needed to be warned of this threat, and he requested confirmation that the father had received this warning within 24 hours. After the father filed a consumer complaint, the California Board of Psychology charged Dr. Geffner with gross negligence and unethical behavior. The Board eventually revoked Dr. Geffner’s psychology license, finding that he violated ethical standards by evaluating the brothers without their father’s consent, without consulting their existing therapist, making custodial recommendations that went beyond the scope of an emergency risk assessment, and delegating the duty to warn the father that one child had thoughts about killing him. Dr. Geffner unsuccessfully petitioned the superior court for a writ of administrative mandamus to vacate the Board’s decision, then appealed.
The Court of Appeal reversed. First, the court held that neither the governing ethical standard nor the evidence supported the finding that Dr. Geffner acted unethically by failing to obtain the father’s consent. The parties agreed that the father’s consent was unnecessary in the case of an emergency, and no expert denied that an emergency existed (the experts simply said they would have handled the situation differently). Next, the Court of Appeal held there was no evidence that Dr. Geffner acted unethically by failing to consult the children’s therapist because the ethical standard gave him discretion regarding whether to seek such consultation; the undisputed evidence showed that the therapist was unavailable and that further efforts to contact the therapist were not required due to the emergency. The Court of Appeal then held there was insufficient evidence that Dr. Geffner made inappropriate custody recommendations because his report did not address custody issues. Finally, the Court held that Dr. Geffner did not unethically delegate his duty to warn the father of the risk of harm. No such duty to warn was triggered because the risk to the father was neither foreseeable nor unavoidable.
Prepared by H. Thomas Watson and Peder K. Batalden, Horvitz & Levy, LLP
California Society for Healthcare Attorneys
1215 K Street, Suite 700
Sacramento, CA 95814
