Bruscato v. O'BRIEN
307 Ga. App. 452
Ga. Ct. App.2010Background
- Bruscato, guardian of Victor Bruscato, appeals a DeKalb County Superior Court summary judgment in favor of psychiatrist Derek Johnson O'Brien in a medical malpractice action.
- Trial court granted summary judgment on grounds including the prospective application of the impact rule and public policy against recovery for illegal acts or their proceeds.
- Bruscato treated Victor beginning January 2001; Victor had a long history of severe mental illness and violence, with prior hospital and CSB interventions and extensive psychiatric diagnoses.
- In May 2002, O'Brien discontinued two antipsychotic medications for six weeks to rule out neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS); experts disagreed on the medical justification for this withdrawal.
- Two weeks after withdrawal, Victor’s condition deteriorated, culminating in the August 15, 2002 murder of his mother; Bruscato alleged that O'Brien’s withdrawal and monitoring caused a decompensation and psychotic break.
- Bruscato’s damages sought include ongoing medical/psychiatric harms from alleged negligent treatment, not solely damages arising from the killing itself; the issue is whether these damages are recoverable under medical malpractice law and public policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the impact rule bars medical malpractice emotional distress claims | Bruscato argues the impact rule does not apply to medical malpractice damages. | O'Brien contends the impact rule should bar recovery for emotional distress prior to the murder. | Impact rule does not apply; reversal of summary judgment on this issue. |
| Whether public-policy bars Bruscato’s damages linked to his mother’s death | Bruscato asserts damages are for medical malpractice, not solely for the murder, and public policy does not bar recovery. | O'Brien argues Bruscato, as an alleged wrongdoer, cannot recover for damages tied to the illegal act. | Public-policy bar does not foreclose recovery for medical malpractice damages except to the extent damages flow from the act of killing; majority remands for jury consideration on non-killing damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. State Farm, etc. Ins. Co., 272 Ga. 583 (2000) (established impact rule elements for emotional distress claims with physical impact)
- Haughton v. Canning, 287 Ga.App. 28 (2007) (medical malpractice standard of care; injury necessary for recovery under OCGA § 51-1-27)
- Pruette v. Phoebe Putney Mem. Hosp., 295 Ga.App. 335 (2008) (proximate cause remains a jury question; summary judgment inappropriate if material facts exist)
- Bruscato v. Gwinnett-Rockdale-Newton Community Svc. Bd., 290 Ga.App. 638 (2008) (earlier related case; context for malpractice against psychiatrists)
- Adams v. Smith, 129 Ga.App. 850 (1973) (public policy and rights of those adjudicated mentally incompetent)
- Cole v. Taylor, 301 N.W.2d 766 (Iowa 1981) (public policy bars claims where crime or illegality is central to claim)
- Lee v. State Farm, etc., Ins. Co. (additional reference), 272 Ga. 583 (2000) (reiterates bright-line physical injury requirement for emotional distress)