In which case did the court expand a practitioner's duty to warn to include family member communications?

The case that expanded a practitioner's duty to warn to include communications with family members is Ewing v. Goldstein. In this decision, the court recognized that practitioners have an obligation not only to protect individuals who may be in immediate danger but also to consider the potential threat posed to others by a patient’s behavior. Specifically, the court established that a therapist’s duty to warn could extend to informing family members if there is a reasonable belief that they might be at risk due to the patient’s actions or intentions. This ruling highlights the importance of considering the safety of those close to a patient, emphasizing an ethical responsibility towards both the individual receiving care and their family members.

Other cases such as Tarasoff v. Board of Regents laid the groundwork for the duty to warn, but Ewing v. Goldstein clarified the breadth of that duty. Jaffee v. Redmond dealt with the confidentiality of communications between a patient and a psychotherapist, while Petersen v. McDonald focused on the specific circumstances surrounding civil liability and duty of care, rather than the expansion of duty to warn.