MENTAL HEALTH CODE
Act 258 of 1974
330.1946 Threat of physical violence against third person; duties.
Sec. 946.
(1) If a patient communicates to a mental health professional who is treating the patient a threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable third person and the recipient has the apparent intent and ability to carry out that threat in the foreseeable future, the mental health professional has a duty to take action as prescribed in subsection (2). Except as provided in this section, a mental health professional does not have a duty to warn a third person of a threat as described in this subsection or to protect the third person.
(2) A mental health professional has discharged the duty created under subsection (1) if the mental health professional, subsequent to the threat, does 1 or more of the following in a timely manner:
(a) Hospitalizes the patient or initiates proceedings to hospitalize the patient under chapter 4 or 4a.
(b) Makes a reasonable attempt to communicate the threat to the third person and communicates the threat to the local police department or county sheriff for the area where the third person resides or for the area where the patient resides, or to the state police.
(c) If the mental health professional has reason to believe that the third person who is threatened is a minor or is incompetent by other than age, takes the steps set forth in subdivision (b) and communicates the threat to the department of social services in the county where the minor resides and to the third person's custodial parent, noncustodial parent, or legal guardian, whoever is appropriate in the best interests of the third person.
(3) If a patient described in subsection (1) is being treated through team treatment in a hospital, and if the individual in charge of the patient's treatment decides to discharge the duty created in subsection (1) by a means described in subsection (2)(b) or (c), the hospital shall designate an individual to communicate the threat to the necessary persons.
(4) A mental health professional who determines in good faith that a particular situation presents a duty under this section and who complies with the duty does not violate section 750. A psychiatrist who determines in good faith that a particular situation presents a duty under this section and who complies with the duty does not violate the physician-patient privilege established under section 2157 of the revised judicature act of 1961, Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, being section 600.2157 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. A psychologist who determines in good faith that a particular situation presents a duty under this section and who complies with the duty does not violate section 18237 of the public health code, Act No. 368 of the Public Acts of 1978, being section 333.18237 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. A certified social worker, social worker, or social worker technician who determines in good faith that a particular situation presents a duty under this section and who complies with the duty does not violate section 1610 of the occupational code, Act No. 299 of the Public Acts of 1980, being section 339.1610 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. A licensed professional counselor who determines in good faith that a particular situation presents a duty under this section and who complies with the duty does not violate section 18117 of the public health code, Act No. 368 of the Public Acts of 1978, being section 333.18117 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. A marriage and family therapist who determines in good faith that a particular situation presents a duty under this section and who complies with the duty does not violate section 1509 of the occupational code, Act No. 299 of the Public Acts of 1980, being section 339.1509 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. A music therapist who determines in good faith that a particular situation presents a duty under this section and who complies with this duty does not violate section 4.11 of the professional code of ethics of the national association for music therapy, inc., or the clinical relationships section of the code of ethics of the certification board for music therapists.
(5) This section does not affect a duty a mental health professional may have under any other section of law.
History: Add. 1989, Act 123, Eff. Sept. 1, 1989 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 259, Imd. Eff. July 5, 1994 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 290, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996
Notes of Decisions
Dawe v. Dr Reuvan Bar-Levav & Assocs., Pc, 761 N.W.2d 318 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 150× “" Accordingly, Dawe alleged that defendants were liable under two theories: statutory liability for failure to warn under MCL 330.1946, and common-law medical malpractice.”
Dawe v. Dr Reuven Bar-Levav & Assocs., Pc, 780 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. 2010).
· cites it 49× “In this case we must decide whether a plaintiff-patient may pursue a common-law medical malpractice claim against his or her mental health professional when the mental health professional allegedly negligently placed the plaintiff in danger of harm at the hands of another…”
Dawe v. Dr Reuven Bar-Levav & Assocs., PC, 808 N.W.2d 240 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 27× “” Accordingly, Dawe alleged that defendants were liable under two theories: statutory liability for failure to warn under MCL 330.1946, and common-law medical malpractice.”
People v. Carrier, 867 N.W.2d 463 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 46× “The circuit court rejected the prosecution’s argument that, under MCL 330.1946, defendant lost or waived the protection of any assumed privilege when he made violent threats.”
Swan v. Wedgwood Christian Youth & Fam. Servs., Inc., 583 N.W.2d 719 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 7× “Plaintiff further argues that the circuit court erred in applying MCL 330.1946; MSA 14.800(946) to the present case and in holding that the statute barred plaintiff’s claim against defendant.”
People v. Stanaway, 521 N.W.2d 557 (Mich. 1994).
· cites it 2× “The exceptions to the privilege are disclosures for internal supervision of the social worker, disclosures made under the duty to warn third parties, as set forth in MCL 330.1946; MSA 14.800(946), and where the client has waived the privilege.”
Jenks v. Brown, 557 N.W.2d 114 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 5× “In his complaint, plaintiff alleges a failure to warn in violation of § 946 of Michigan’s Mental Health Code, MCL 330.1946; MSA 14.800(946). Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in concluding that plaintiff failed to state a cause of action.”
Roberts v. Salmi, 866 N.W.2d 460 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, a common-law duty of a psychiatrist to protect third persons from his or her patients under certain circumstances was recognized by this Court before the Legislature stepped in and enacted a comparable statutory duty under MCL 330.”
Saur v. Probes, 476 N.W.2d 496 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
“15(16244) (disclosures to the Department of Licensing and Regulation or appropriate health board); MCL 500.2477; MSA 24.”
Omran Daher v. Bca of Detroit LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 6× “In response, Mohamad contended that the lack of a physician-patient relationship rendered his complaint properly brought as a negligence lawsuit and that summary disposition was premature because he was not yet able to conduct discovery and review Alaa’s medical records.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 330.1946(1) — 8 cases
Dawe v. Dr Reuven Bar-Levav & Assocs., Pc, 780 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. 2010).
“In this case we must decide whether a plaintiff-patient may pursue a common-law medical malpractice claim against his or her mental health professional when the mental health professional allegedly negligently placed the plaintiff in danger of harm at the hands of another…”
Dawe v. Dr Reuvan Bar-Levav & Assocs., Pc, 761 N.W.2d 318 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
“" Accordingly, Dawe alleged that defendants were liable under two theories: statutory liability for failure to warn under MCL 330.1946, and common-law medical malpractice.”
Dawe v. Dr Reuven Bar-Levav & Assocs., PC, 808 N.W.2d 240 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“” Accordingly, Dawe alleged that defendants were liable under two theories: statutory liability for failure to warn under MCL 330.1946, and common-law medical malpractice.”
People v. Carrier, 867 N.W.2d 463 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“The circuit court rejected the prosecution’s argument that, under MCL 330.1946, defendant lost or waived the protection of any assumed privilege when he made violent threats.”
Swan v. Wedgwood Christian Youth & Fam. Servs., Inc., 583 N.W.2d 719 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“Plaintiff further argues that the circuit court erred in applying MCL 330.1946; MSA 14.800(946) to the present case and in holding that the statute barred plaintiff’s claim against defendant.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 330.1946(2) — 4 cases
Dawe v. Dr Reuven Bar-Levav & Assocs., Pc, 780 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. 2010).
“In this case we must decide whether a plaintiff-patient may pursue a common-law medical malpractice claim against his or her mental health professional when the mental health professional allegedly negligently placed the plaintiff in danger of harm at the hands of another…”
Dawe v. Dr Reuvan Bar-Levav & Assocs., Pc, 761 N.W.2d 318 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
“" Accordingly, Dawe alleged that defendants were liable under two theories: statutory liability for failure to warn under MCL 330.1946, and common-law medical malpractice.”
Omran Daher v. Bca of Detroit LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“In response, Mohamad contended that the lack of a physician-patient relationship rendered his complaint properly brought as a negligence lawsuit and that summary disposition was premature because he was not yet able to conduct discovery and review Alaa’s medical records.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 330.1946(2)(a) — 1 case
People v. Carrier, 867 N.W.2d 463 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“The circuit court rejected the prosecution’s argument that, under MCL 330.1946, defendant lost or waived the protection of any assumed privilege when he made violent threats.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 330.1946(2)(b) — 1 case
People v. Carrier, 867 N.W.2d 463 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“The circuit court rejected the prosecution’s argument that, under MCL 330.1946, defendant lost or waived the protection of any assumed privilege when he made violent threats.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 330.1946(2)(c) — 1 case
People v. Carrier, 867 N.W.2d 463 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“The circuit court rejected the prosecution’s argument that, under MCL 330.1946, defendant lost or waived the protection of any assumed privilege when he made violent threats.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 330.1946(4) — 1 case
People v. Carrier, 867 N.W.2d 463 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“The circuit court rejected the prosecution’s argument that, under MCL 330.1946, defendant lost or waived the protection of any assumed privilege when he made violent threats.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.