Scope of Civil Liability Under the Mental Health Procedures Act

In the case of Leight v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Physicians, No. 2018 Pa. Super. 359 (Pa. Super. Dec. 31, 2018 Bender, P.J.E., Lazarus, J., and Musmanno, J.) (Op. by Musmanno, J.), the Plaintiffs appealed from a dismissal of their personal injury claims under the Mental Health Procedures Act against the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and other physicians who had treated a mentally ill person that had injured the Plaintiff in a shooting incident.  

The Plaintiffs filed suit against the medical providers alleging a failure to warn and negligence of their treatment of the shooter.   The Plaintiffs alleged that, although the shooter had increasingly violent encounters and had been treated for both schizophrenia and medication non-compliance, the medical providers allegedly failed to file commitment papers and had, instead, terminated their relationship with that mentally ill patient.  
 The Defendants filed Preliminary Objections asserting that there was no duty to warn or to protect the Plaintiff from the shooter under the Mental Health Procedures Act.  

The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the claims based upon a ruling that the Mental Health Procedures Act did not apply to voluntary outpatient treatment.  

More specifically, the Superior Court noted that the physicians’ mere consideration, during voluntary outpatient treatment of a patient, of  possibly initiating an involuntary examination of a suspected mentally ill person was insufficient to trigger the scope and provisions of the Mental Health Procedures Act.  

The court further specified that a plain reading of the Act showed that it only applied to involuntary treatment and voluntary inpatient treatment of mental ill persons.   Accordingly, the court held that the cause of action provision of the Act did not apply to the voluntary outpatient treatment that the shooter had received from the physicians in this case.   

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

Source: “Digests of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Jan. 22, 2019).  
 

Pennsylvania Superior Court Addresses Duty Of Mental Health Providers to Warn Others of Dangers Posed by Psychiatric Patient Who Threatens

In the case of Maas v. UPMC, 2018 Pa. Super. 195 (Pa. Super. June 29, 2018 Bowes, J., Stabile, J., Ford Elliot, P.J.E.) (Op. by Bowes, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court denied a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment involving a case on the duty of  psychiatric treatment providers to warn others of dangers posed by psychiatric patients. 

According to the Opinion, the psychiatric patient threatened to kill “neighbors” and described a sufficiently ascertainable group such that the law imposed a duty upon the treatment providers to warn those persons of the threats.  

 The court noted that a duty to warn exists under these circumstances where the target is identifiable, not just identifiable by name, such that the mental health professionals must use reasonable efforts to identify the potential victims and provide them with warnings.  

In the case, the court noted that the potential group of victims was about 20 people, which was deemed to be manageable of people to warn.  

To review this case, please click HERE. 

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith for bringing this case to my attention. 

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.