Legal Opinion · Dissent

Marshall v. Klebanov

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided July 26, 2006Published

1DissentJustice Rivera-Soto

N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-16a specifically provides that “[a]ny person who is licensed ... to practice ... psychiatry ... is immune from *41any civil liability for a patient’s violent act against ... himself unless the practitioner has incurred a duty to warn and protect____” N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-16b makes clear that a mental health practitioner incurs a duty to warn and protect only when there is a threat actually communicated by the patient or the reasonable professional belief by the practitioner of “imminent, serious physical violence____” Read together, as they must, these provisions make clear that,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Marshall v. KlebanovNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API