Abstract
Considered by some in the mental health profession as the imposition of an onerous duty, the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Estates of Morgan v. Fairfield Family Counseling Center represents an extension of the recognized legal duty imposed upon mental health practitioners who treat inpatients to those who treat outpatients. This created a uniform standard. The article begins in Part II by describing the story of a psychiatric patient, Matt Morgan. Part III then discusses the duty to control in the outpatient setting by going through traditional tort analysis, stare decisis, strict statutory application, and civil procedure. Part IV concludes the discussion by describing the importance of the Morgan decision. The authors believe that the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Morgan is both conservative and judicially sound. They posit that by using Tarasoff as a starting point rather than a destination, the Court avoided many of the dangers other courts have encountered in addressing psychotherapist negligence.
Recommended Citation
Geoffrey M. Wardle and Jeffrey L. Mallon,
The Strict Application of the Restatement, Ohio Law and the Rules of Civil Procedure: Estates of Morgan v. Fairfield Family Counseling Center,
45 Clev. St. L. Rev.
649
(1997)
available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol45/iss4/10