Liability Issues in Social Work Supervision

Abstract

Supervision is recognized widely as a number of legal or liability issues related central role in social work practice, to supervision. Beginning with the work of the Charity Organization Societies in the nineteenth „ , . . r . , T, ceitary, supervision has been the prinProfesional Liability cipal means for transmitting profesUntil recently, a lawsuit against a sional knowledge and skill from the mental health professional was rela experienced to the inexperienced, from tively rare. The average neurosurgeon the trained to the untrained, and from is sued about once every 2 years of field instructor to student (Miller, 1987). practice; the average psychiatrist is Over time, social workers have genersued once every 50 to 100 years of ated a substantial pool of knowledge practice (Cohen & Mariano, 1982). The and conventional wisdom about the purrisk of incurring professional liability poses and methods of supervision. was even lower for psychologists, social To date, the profession's literature on workers, and other mental health pro supervision has concentrated almost exfessionals who do not administer clusively on pedagogical and technical medication (Cohen & Mariano, 1982). aspects of supervision, particularly However, because of a variety of fac issues related to professional accounttors—namely, increasingly complex and ability (Slavin, 1982); role strain inintrusive treatment technology, increas volved in shifting from practitioner to ing criticism of professional authority, supervisor (Patti, 1983); administrative changing legal attitudes toward profes and managerial tasks of the supervisor sional negligence, and vague regu (Kadushin, 1976); leadership in superlations—liability suits are increasing vision (Austin, 1981); the quasi-psycho(Cohen & Mariano, 1982; Sandor, therapeutic function of supervision 1957). As Besharov (1985) has noted: (Munson, 1983); and the relationship between organizational dynamics and Social worker liability is a relatively new supervision (Miller, 1987). Broad ethical phenomenon. As recently as ten years ago, issues related to match supervisors and there were almost no lawsuits, let alone supervisees, contracting, informing successful ones, against social workers. r . r • , • i 7 Since then, though, a number of changes, clients of supervisors involvement, some in ?e law\nd some in the evaluating supervisees, and providing work profession, have combined to in feedback to supervisees also have been crease the likelihood of lawsuits greatly, addressed (Cohen, 1987; Levy, 1973). (p. 13) Although social workers have learned significantly more about pedagogical Ordinarily, professional malpractice is and technical aspects of supervision in defined as a form of negligence on recent years, one important aspect of the part of practitioners, who are re the supervisory role has been neglected: quired to perform in a manner that is liability risks faced by the social work consistent with the way an ordinary, supervisor. As the domain of social reasonable, and prudent professional work supervision has expanded, so have would act under the same or similar the liability risks that accompany the circumstances in their profession supervisor-supervisee relationship. (Bernstein, 1981; Cohen & Mariano, Thus, it is important for social workers 1982; Levine, 1976). To support a mal to be informed about the growing practice action, the courts typically will require that four essential elements are present: 1. at the time of the alleged malprac tice, a legal duty existed between the practitioner and the injured party; 2. the practitioner was derelict in that duty, either through an action that should have occurred or through an omission; 3. the client suffered some harm or