Pennsylvania Superior Court Reviews Immunity Provisions of Mental Health Procedures Act in Case of Voluntary In-Patient Examinations

In the case of Matos v. Geisinger Medical Center, No. 1189 MDA 2021 (Pa. Super. March 10, 2023 Stabile, J., Bender, P.J.E., Stevens, P.J.E.) (Op. by Stabile, J.), the court, addressing an interlocutory appeal that was allowed by permission, affirmed the trial court's denial of the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice case involving the application of the Mental Health Procedures Act.

The Superior Court agreed that a Defendant is not absolutely immunized from a Plaintiff’s lawsuit under the Mental Health Procedures Act.

According to the Opinion, in this matter, the Defendants allegedly refused a patient’s attempt to commit himself voluntarily for in-patient treatment and, shortly thereafter, that patient killed his girlfriend, who was the Plaintiff’s decedent.

The court found that the immunity requirements under the Mental Health Procedures Act are different for involuntary and voluntary treatment scenarios.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that mental health facilities can be liable for the refusal to provide voluntary in-patient examinations and treatment when the refusal amounts to a willful misconduct or gross negligence on the part of the Defendant.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia law office of the Reed Smith law firm.

Court Allows Claim To Proceed Against Gun Owner Where Plaintiff Shot By Mentally Unstable Person Who Had Access to Guns

In the case of Blank v. Combs, No. 10122 of 2020, C.A. (C.P. Lawr. Co. Aug. 5, 2020 Motto, J.), the court overruled a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections in the nature of a demurrer in a case involving claims that the Defendants knew about their stepfather’s mental health issues and failed to take any precautionary measures to prevent injury to the Plaintiff, even after discovering that their stepfather was distressed and had left their residence with a firearm. The stepfather ended up shooting the Plaintiff. 

According to the Opinion, the shooter was the stepfather of the Defendant gun owner and the stepfather resided with his stepson.

It was alleged in the Plaintiff's Complaint that the stepson kept a firearm in an unlocked desk draw at the residence. It was additionally alleged that the stepfather knew the location of the gun and was able to access it. 

It was further alleged that the Defendant stepson was aware that the stepfather had a history of mental illness, including a bipolar disorder, paranoia, and schizophrenia. It was also noted that the stepfather’s mental health issues had led to his hospitalization in the past. 

On the date of the incident, the stepfather was having an episode of paranoia. It was known to the Defendants that the stepfather had taken the firearm and left the house. However, neither of the Defendants took any action to notify law enforcement. The stepfather later shot the Plaintiff on the same day. 

The Plaintiff filed suit alleging negligence on the part of the gun owners. The Defendants filed Preliminary Objections asserting that they cannot be liable for the Plaintiffs’ injuries based upon the criminal conduct of a third party in the absence of a pre-existing relationship imposing a duty of care upon the Defendants. 

The court ruled that, under Pennsylvania law, the Plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to support a cause of action. The Plaintiff had alleged that the Defendants were aware of the stepfather’s mental health issues and, even though the stepfather had exhibited signs of distress, neither of the Defendants took any steps to secure the firearm or prevent the stepfather from gaining access to it. The Plaintiff had also alleged that, even after it was discovered that the stepfather had left the home with the weapon, the gun owners did not attempt to contact law enforcement. 

The court overruled the Defendants’ Preliminary Objections finding that these facts were sufficient to support the Plaintiffs’ claims for negligence and loss of consortium. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Sept. 29, 2020).

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Addresses Liability of Mental Healthcare Providers To Warn Others Regarding Patient

In the case of Maas v. UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside, No. 7 WAP 2019 (Pa. July 21, 2020) (Op. by Dougherty, J.)(Baer, J., Dissenting), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the duty of a mental health treatment provider to warn individuals who may be the subject of their patient’s threats.

According to the Opinion, a mental health patient lived in an apartment building and repeatedly told his doctors and therapist that he would kill an unnamed “neighbor.”

Unfortunately, the mental health patient ultimately carried out his threat, killing an individual who lived in his building, a few doors away from his own apartment.

In a subsequent wrongful death litigation filed by the victim’s family, the Defendant medical providers argued that they had no duty to warn anyone about the patient’s threats because he never expressly identified a specific victim.

The trial court rejected this argument and denied the medical providers’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

The case went up on appeal and the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s finding.

With this decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court also affirmed and found no reversible error.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Majority Opinion in this decision may click this LINK.

The Dissenting Opinion by Justice Baer may be viewed HERE.

Judge Minora of Lackawanna County Denies Motion for Reconsideration in Medical Malpractice Case

In a recent decision in the case of Rarrick v. Silbert, No. 2002-CV-4951 (C.P. Lacka. Co. June 23, 2015 Minora, J.), Judge Carmen D. Minora, of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, denied a Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of his previously denial of the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a medical malpractice case against a psychiatrist and another Defendant entity in a case involving allegations that the Defendants failed to take appropriate steps to avoid a situation with an emotionally unstable individual from escalating into a hostage-taken event for the Plaintiff and her family members that had to be defused by police intervention.  

Judge Minora laid out the standard of review for Motions to Reconsideration and found that the Defendant’s motion had been timely filed.

Judge Minora rejected the defense contention that, since the Court found in its previous decision in the matter that there was no common law duty owed to the Plaintiff, there could be no valid claim by the Plaintiff.   To the contrary, Judge Minora found that the Mental Health Procedures Act created a statutory duty of care owed to the Plaintiff that allowed the claim to proceed. 

The Court also rejected the defense argument that the Plaintiff failed to produce expert report as required by Pennsylvania law to move forward on the claims presented.   In so ruling, Judge Minora found that this case fell within those types of cases where the alleged negligence and/or the alleged lack of skill and/or the alleged lack of due care averred was so obvious as to be within the realm of a layperson’s normal understanding based upon the ordinary experience and comprehension such that expert testimony is not required.    

As such, the court denied the Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration.  

 

Anyone desiring a copy of this decision may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.

Judge Minora of Lackawanna County Addresses Liability of Mental Health Professionals for Harm Caused by Mentally Unstable Patients

In the case of Rarrick v. Silbert, No. 2002 CV 4951 (C.P. Lacka. Co. March 24, 2015 Minora, J.), Judge Carmen D. Minora denied a motion for summary judgment filed by the defense in a medical malpractice case against a psychiatrist and another defendant entity in a case involving allegations that the defendant(s) failed to take appropriate steps to avoid a situation with an emotional unstable individual from escalating into a hostage-taking event for the Plaintiff and her family members that had to be defused by police intervention.

The defense argued that it was entitled to summary judgment because Pennsylvania law does not recognize a duty by mental health providers to protect unidentified third parties from the actions of mental health patients.  The defense also asserted that the Plaintiff had failed to offer evidence of gross negligence as allegedly required by the Mental Health Procedures Act.

The Plaintiffs countered with an argument that the Defendants stood in a special relationship with the Plaintiff that required the Defendants to take action to protect the Plaintiff and imposed upon the Defendants a professional duty to warn the Plaintiff of potential danger from her allegedly mentally unstable husband.  The Plaintiffs also asserted that there were issues of fact on the gross negligence question that prevented the entry of summary judgment.

Judge Carmen D. Minora
Lackawanna County

After reviewing the applicable law, Judge Minora agreed that, under the Restatement of Torts, there was no duty to control the conduct of third persons unless a special relationship existed.  However, there was case law noted by the court that a mental health professional may have a duty to protect by warning others of potential danger in extremely limited circumstances involving specific and immediate threats of serious bodily injury to a specifically identified individual or a readily identifiable individual.

Here, while there was evidence that the family members of the allegedly mentally unstable individual contacted the psychiatrist leading up to the incident, there was no threat voiced by the allegedly mentally unstable person to the psychiatrist found in the record.  Accordingly, Judge Minora found that the Plaintiff's argument failed to support a finding of a creation of a duty owed by the psychiatrist to the Plaintiff in this regard.

However, Judge Minora found that issues of fact on the gross negligence allegations of liability under the Mental Health Procedures Act question, prevented the entry of summary judgment in this matter.

Judge Minora also address issues with respect to the production of expert reports 1042.28.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision by Judge Minora in the Rarrick case, may click this LINK.