Majority Goes Too Far in Ruling on Social Worker's Duty to Warn | New Jersey Law Journal - Law.com

Our Supreme Court's recent 4-3 decision in Coleman v. Martinez poses the question of whether and to what extent the courts should rely on statute as a source of public policy in shaping the common law outside the bounds of the statute. Justice Albin's dissent declares that the Legislature is the "ultimate expositor of public policy," from which it concludes that a statute limiting the duty of licensed mental health professionals to warn of danger from a patient should be applied to a social worker not within the scope of the statute. Justice Solomon's opinion for the majority declines to apply the statute beyond its express terms, instead applying a common law analysis of duty to the facts of the case. By a one-vote majority, the court has decided that it will exercise independent judgment in determining the scope of duty to a tort victim unless and only so far as directly constrained by statute.

The case arose from a knife attack by a psychiatric patient, T.E. on plaintiff Coleman, a caseworker of the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP). T.E. had repeated violent psychotic episodes, and her children were removed by DCPP. DCPP referred her to the care of Martinez, a social worker employed by a nonprofit organization and to a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist directed Martinez to inform him if and when T.E "decompensated." T.E. continued to have complaints of hearing voices, and complaints that others were lying about her condition. She also expressed determination to regain custody of her children.

Adblock test (Why?)