# Bird v. W.C.W.

> Texas Supreme Court · January 5, 1994 · 37 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 329

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9674230

## Case

- **Full name:** Esther BIRD and Kenneth Wetcher, M.D., P.A., and Associates, Petitioners, v. W.C.W., Respondent
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 5, 1994
- **Citations:** 37 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 329; 868 S.W.2d 767; 62 U.S.L.W. 2515; 1994 Tex. LEXIS 13; 1994 WL 1929
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Gammage
- **Judges:** Enoch, Gammage, Cornyn, Phillips, Gonzalez, Hightower, Hecht, Doggett, Spector
- **Cited by:** 251 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Disagreed with by ALTHAUS BY ALTHAUS v. Cohen, 1998 Pa. Super. LEXIS 631 (1998).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 1
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9674230

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a psychologist who mistakenly concluded that a child had been molested by her father did not owe a duty to the third party father, who had been criminally charged as a result, in part because of the absence of a physician-patient relationship, even though it was f…
- recognizing the foreseeable harm to a parent who was accused of sexual abuse due to allegedly negligent mental health treatment provided to the child, though ultimately concluding that the mental health professional still did not owe a duty of care to the parent
- holding that a mental health professional had no physician-patient relationship with her patient’s father and-therefore owed no duty to the father not to negligently misdiagnose the condition of the child
- acknowledging harm to a parent accused of sexual abuse is foreseeable but holding foreseeability is not alone a sufficient basis for creating a new duty; court ultimately held mental health care practitioner owes no duty to parent not to negligently misdiagnose condition of ch…
- noting applicability of Family Code immunity provisions in similar case against psychologists and stating that “mental health professionals should be allowed to exercise their professional judgment in diagnosing sexual abuse of a child without the judicial imposition of a coun…

## Opinion text

GAMMAGE, Justice,
joined by
DOGGETT, J.,
concurring.
Though I concur, today’s judgment should not be read as conferring a grant of absolute immunity upon mental health professionals. The opinion concludes that “a privilege exists for communication of an alleged child abuser’s identity in the course of a judicial proceeding whether [or not] the accusation was negligently made.'” Every privilege carries with it a responsibility. If we are to grant mental health professionals the privilege of making such accusations, even if they are not called upon to make them, we also should hold them to an appropriate standard of professional responsibility. Adhering to its duty to recognize changes in the common law, Texas courts have from time to time imposed standards on various occupations. See, e.g., El Chico Corp. v. Poole, 732 S.W.2d 306, 308 (Tex.1987); Otis Engineering Corp. v. Clark, 668 S.W.2d at 311; Gooden v. Tips, 651 S.W.2d at 369.
False accusations of child abuse can be devastating: they destroy reputations, relationships, even lives. Our society faces no problem more serious than child abuse. Though we should give mental health workers in this field some latitude and protection *773 in their efforts to eradicate child abuse, commensurate standards of professional discretion should apply, and failure to adhere to such standards could foreseeably result in their judicial recognition and enforcement.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9674230. Public record. Not legal advice.