Psychotherapist responsibility in notifying individuals at risk for exposure to HIV

This article presents a debate between two prominent Los Angeles law firms. The issue under consideration is the responsibility of a psychotherapist in notifying individuals at risk for exposure to HIV. Both law firms were presented with a fictional case involving a psychotherapist and a client with AIDS. The client with AIDS is a heterosexual married man who first tested HIV positive, and eventually developed AIDS. The transmission of HIV was presumably the result of a gay affair. However, despite the psychotherapist's constant urging, the client refused to inform his wife about his affair, his antibody status, or his disease. When the wife eventually learned of her husband's illness, she brought suit against the psychotherapist via the Tarasoff ruling. For the purposes of this debate, the law firm of Girardi, Keese and Crane have represented the wife (Plaintiff), whereas the law firm of Cooksey, Howard, Martin and Toolen have represented the psychotherapist (Defendant). Initial arguments, as well as rebuttals, are presented herein.

Key words:

• AIDS
• HIV
• psychotherapist responsibility
• psychotherapist liability
• Tarasoff decision

Notes

Plaintiff's Argument: John A. Girardi, J.D., and Robert M. Keese, J.D., of the law firm Girardi, Keese and Crane. Defense Argument: Lynn Bonnila Traver, J.D., and David R. Cooksey, J.D., of the law firm of Cooksey, Howard, Martin and Toolen.