Rodriguez v. Catholic Health Initiatives
297 Neb. 1
| Neb. | 2017Background
- In August 2013 Mikael Loyd was taken into emergency protective custody by Omaha police after expressing a desire to kill; he was transferred to Lasting Hope (a mental health facility) and evaluated by a UNMC psychiatrist.
- The psychiatrist found Loyd not to be a danger; Loyd remained at Lasting Hope August 8–14, during which he made repeated calls to the victim, Melissa Rodriguez.
- On August 12 police attempted to arrest Loyd on an outstanding warrant at Lasting Hope but were told he could not be released; appellants allege Lasting Hope prevented his release to police.
- On August 14 Loyd left Lasting Hope without supervision or notice, later murdered Melissa, and was subsequently arrested while at Lasting Hope.
- Melissa’s parents sued Lasting Hope defendants (CHI/affiliates, Lasting Hope staff, Noll entities) and UNMC defendants (UNMC Physicians, the evaluating psychiatrist) for negligence/wrongful death; district court dismissed claims for lack of duty and denied leave to amend as to UNMC; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lasting Hope owed a duty to third parties (Melissa) based on custody of Loyd | Lasting Hope took charge of Loyd (refused police custody, held him during EPU), creating a custodial special relationship and duty to exercise reasonable care | No special duty existed to protect Melissa absent a communication of a specific threat to her | Court: Lasting Hope had custody/control under Restatement (Third) §41(b)(2); duty existed and complaint stated plausible breach and causation — dismissal reversed and remanded |
| Whether UNMC defendants (psychiatrist) faced liability for failing to warn/protect absent an allegation that Loyd communicated a specific threat to Melissa | Plaintiffs could and should be allowed to amend to allege Loyd communicated a serious threat to a reasonably identifiable victim (Melissa); the psychiatrist’s evaluation arose in the statutory EPU context | UNMC argued statutory limits on practitioner liability require an actual communicated serious threat to a reasonably identifiable victim; plaintiffs’ complaint lacked that specific allegation so dismissal was proper | Court: Statutory/precedent framework (Munstermann) allows liability if a serious threat was communicated; proposed amendment would not be futile — leave to amend should have been granted and dismissal reversed |
| Standard for denying leave to amend after dismissal but before discovery | Plaintiffs: denial was error because amendment could survive a 12(b)(6) challenge and discovery not complete | Defendants: amendment futile; district court properly denied leave | Court: Where amendment is sought before discovery/summary judgment, futility judged by 12(b)(6) standard — here amendment could survive, so denial was error |
| Pleading standard applicable to negligence/duty allegations | Plaintiffs: notice pleading and plausible-claim standard permit inference of required elements and justify discovery | Defendants: plaintiffs failed to plead required elements with specificity (e.g., communicated threat to identified victim) | Court: Nebraska’s liberal notice pleading + plausibility/discovery standard governs; allegations were sufficient or curable by amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Munstermann v. Alegent Health, 271 Neb. 834 (2006) (psychiatrist liable to warn/protect only when patient communicates a serious threat of physical violence to a reasonably identifiable victim)
- A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205 (2010) (adopted Restatement (Third) duty-framework and clarified duty as legal conclusion tied to reasonable care)
- Ginapp v. City of Bellevue, 282 Neb. 1027 (2012) (discussed custodial special-relationship duty to control dangerous third parties)
- Peterson v. Kings Gate Partners, 290 Neb. 658 (2015) (adopted Restatement (Third) special-relationship provisions in landlord-tenant context)
- Tryon v. City of North Platte, 295 Neb. 706 (2017) (de novo review standard for motions to dismiss)
- Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228 (2017) (standard for appellate review of denial of leave to amend; futility reviewed de novo)