Sentences with phrase «substantially harm a person»

1.05 Reporting Ethical Violations If an apparent ethical violation has substantially harmed or is likely to substantially harm a person or organization and is not appropriate for informal resolution under Standard 1.04, Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations, or is not resolved properly in that fashion, psychologists take further action appropriate to the situation.

If a violation of Standards 2.01 a and 9.01 a of the APA ethics code «has substantially harmed or is likely to substantially harm a person or organization... psychologists take further action appropriate to the situation.»

If an apparent ethical violation has substantially harmed or is likely to substantially harm a person or organization and is not appropriate for informal resolution under Standard 1.04, Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations, or is not resolved properly in that fashion, psychologists take further action appropriate to the situation.

APA Standard 1.05: Reporting Ethical Violations If an apparent ethical violation has substantially harmed or is likely to substantially harm a person or organization and is not appropriate for informal resolution under Standard 1.04, Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations, or is not resolved properly in that fashion, psychologists take further action appropriate to the situation.

Not exact matches

where a lawyer believes upon reasonable grounds that there is an imminent risk to an identifiable person or group of death or serious bodily harm, including serious psychological harm that substantially interferes with health or well - being... where it is necessary to do so in order to prevent the death or harm.

«Threat» is defined (RCW 9A.04.110 (27)-RRB- as «to communicate, directly or indirectly the intent to...» (list then follows, including «do any other act which is intended to harm substantially the person threatened or another with respect to his or her health, safety, business, financial condition, or personal relationships»).

[20] The court went on to define recklessness as an act performed while knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable person to realize that his or her conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another and that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct negligent.

The court in Warth expounded that:»... when the asserted harm is a generalized grievance [such as so - called traffic cases] shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens [People] that harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction [citation omitted].