Does therapist immunity protect against negligent voluntary acts? Robinson v. Mount Logan Clinic, LLC Explained

In Robinson v. Mount Logan Clinic, LLC, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether therapist immunity statutes shield healthcare providers from liability when they voluntarily provide information to law enforcement but do so negligently.

Background and Facts

A therapist at Mount Logan Clinic called police to escort a suicidal patient to a hospital. The therapist knew the patient had a history of violent behavior and sometimes carried a gun, and during the session, when asked about weapons, the patient replied “Maybe I do, maybe I don’t.” When police dispatch asked if the patient had weapons, the therapist replied “No.” During transport, the patient’s concealed handgun discharged, injuring Officer Robinson’s foot. The district court granted summary judgment for the clinic based on Utah Code section 78-14a-102(1), which generally shields therapists from duty to warn unless specific statutory exceptions apply.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two critical questions: whether the therapist immunity statute precluded any duty to Officer Robinson, and whether a common-law duty arose when the therapist voluntarily provided information to law enforcement.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court held that while section 78-14a-102(1) imposed no statutory duty to warn Officer Robinson (since he was not a “clearly identified or reasonably identifiable victim” of any communicated threat), the therapist’s affirmative act of answering dispatch questions created a common-law duty to exercise reasonable care. The court emphasized that when someone “undertakes an act which he has no duty to perform and another reasonably relies upon that undertaking, the act must generally be performed with ordinary or reasonable care.”

Practice Implications

This decision establishes that therapist immunity statutes do not create blanket protection from all negligence claims. Healthcare providers must understand that voluntary communications with law enforcement, even when not legally required, can create liability if performed negligently. The ruling clarifies the distinction between statutory immunity from duties to act and common-law responsibilities arising from chosen actions.