McArdle v. Mission Hosp., Inc.
255 N.C. App. 39
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Joshua McArdle, a veteran with PTSD and substance abuse history, was the subject of an affidavit and a magistrate’s Findings and Custody Order directing law enforcement to take him into custody for a statutorily required “First Examination.”
- Buncombe County deputies took Joshua to Mission Hospital, where hospital staff (including a licensed clinical social worker, Dina Paul) performed the First Examination and recommended against involuntary inpatient commitment; Dr. Roberson signed the examiner’s Recommendation and Joshua was discharged the same day without family notice.
- Three days later Joshua attacked family members, seriously wounding two and fatally injuring himself; family members sued Mission Hospital and Mission Health System for negligence, gross negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress based on the First Examination and the recommendation against commitment.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); plaintiffs moved to amend. The trial court dismissed the complaint and denied leave to amend as futile, finding Defendants owed no legal duty to plaintiffs; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that at the First Examination stage custody (and thus a special relationship giving rise to duty to third parties) remains with law enforcement or another properly designated person, not with the examiner or hospital, and that the statutory scheme does not create a legal right to control that would impose such a duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an examiner/hospital owes a duty to third parties during the First Examination stage of involuntary commitment | McArdle: examiner/hospital had a legal right/duty to decide whether to restrain or release Joshua and thus had a legal right to control him, creating a special relationship and duty to third parties | Mission: custody and legal right to control remain with law enforcement (or designee); examiner/hospital do not assume custody or control at First Examination and thus owe no duty to third parties | Held: No duty; custody and legal control remain with law enforcement/designee at First Examination, so no special relationship arose |
| Whether the statutory duty to "make determinations" in a First Examination extends protection to third parties | McArdle: the mandatory statutory "shall" creates a duty that extends to public safety/third parties | Mission: the statutory scheme protects respondents’ due process and defines examiner’s role; duties do not create public-safety obligations to third parties | Held: Statutory duties are procedural and respondent-focused, not public-safety statutes creating third-party liability |
| Whether the complaint could be amended to cure defects and state a viable claim | McArdle: proposed amendments would show statutory noncompliance and sufficient facts to establish duty/negligence | Mission: amendments cannot overcome the absence of a legal duty because the statutory scheme precludes examiner custody/control at this stage | Held: Denied as futile; amendment would not change the legal conclusion of no duty |
| Whether North Carolina law imposes an affirmative duty on mental health providers to seek involuntary commitment | McArdle: failure to recommend commitment was negligent | Mission: NC law does not impose an affirmative duty to seek commitment; mistakes not actionable | Held: Court follows precedent that NC does not recognize such an affirmative duty in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Scadden v. Holt, 222 N.C. App. 799 (N.C. Ct. App.) (explains requirement of custody or legal right to control to create duty to third parties)
- King v. Durham County Mental Health, 113 N.C. App. 341 (N.C. Ct. App.) (distinguishes voluntary commitment and absence of custody-based duty)
- Davis v. N.C. Dept. of Human Resources, 121 N.C. App. 105 (N.C. Ct. App.) (duty to third parties arises where patient is involuntarily committed into defendant’s custody)
- Pangburn v. Saad, 73 N.C. App. 336 (N.C. Ct. App.) (institution negligently released involuntarily committed patient; duty recognized)
- Currie v. U.S., 836 F.2d 209 (4th Cir.) (North Carolina law unlikely to impose tort liability for failure to seek involuntary commitment)
- Stein v. Asheville City Bd. of Educ., 360 N.C. 321 (N.C.) (articulates elements for special-relationship duty to control dangerous third person)
- McLean v. Sale, 38 N.C. App. 520 (N.C. Ct. App.) (statutory "shall" language can impose duties on examiners but does not by itself create third-party liability)
- Waldron v. Batten, 191 N.C. App. 237 (N.C. Ct. App.) (clarifies that no involuntary commitment occurs if First Examination does not recommend commitment)