Rodriguez v. Catholic Health Initiatives
297 Neb. 1
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Melissa Rodriguez was murdered on August 14, 2013, by Mikael Loyd, who had been placed on emergency protective custody and taken to Lasting Hope (a mental health facility) on August 8, 2013.
- Loyd underwent a 36-hour statutorily required mental-health evaluation by Jane Doe Physician #1 (UNMC), who concluded Loyd was "not a danger to himself or others." Loyd nevertheless made repeated phone calls to Melissa while at Lasting Hope.
- OPD officers sought to arrest Loyd on an outstanding misdemeanor warrant on August 12; Lasting Hope refused to release Loyd to police because the facility asserted the emergency hold remained in effect.
- On August 14 Loyd left Lasting Hope unobserved, Lasting Hope did not notify police or warn Melissa, and later that day Loyd murdered Melissa and then returned to Lasting Hope.
- Melissa’s parents sued Lasting Hope/affiliates (Lasting Hope defendants), UNMC and its psychiatrist (UNMC defendants), and City defendants for negligence and wrongful death; the district court granted motions to dismiss and denied leave to amend as to UNMC; this appeal challenges dismissals of Lasting Hope and UNMC defendants and denial of leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lasting Hope owed a duty to protect third parties from a person in its custody | Lasting Hope had custody/control of Loyd after emergency protective custody transfer and refusal to release him to police, creating a custodial duty to third parties, including Melissa | No special relationship/duty existed to Melissa because plaintiff did not allege specific communication of a threat to her | Court: Duty exists under Restatement (Third) §41(b)(2) for custodians; plaintiffs sufficiently alleged custody and breach, reversal and remand for Lasting Hope defendants |
| Whether UNMC psychiatrist owed a duty to warn/protect Melissa under statutory and common-law limitations | Allegations (and proposed amendment) show Loyd communicated threats and was dangerous; psychiatrist’s evaluation arose under emergency custody context, so a duty could arise under Munstermann/statute | Defendants argued plaintiffs failed to allege communication of a serious threat to a reasonably identifiable victim (Melissa) so no duty arose; amendment would be futile | Court: Proposed amendment alleging Loyd communicated a serious threat to an identifiable victim would not be futile; denial of leave to amend and dismissal of UNMC reversed and remanded |
| Standard for futility of proposed amendment after dismissal but before discovery | Plaintiffs: Leave should be allowed because amendment could survive a 12(b)(6) challenge | Defendants: Amendment still futile; should be denied | Court: Where amendment is sought pre-discovery and pre-summary judgment, futility judged by Rule 12(b)(6); here amendment could withstand dismissal, so leave should have been granted |
| Pleading standard applicable to negligence/duty inquiries | Plaintiffs: Nebraska’s notice pleading and plausibility standards permit inferences that discovery will prove elements | Defendants: Plaintiffs’ complaint lacks required specific allegations tying communications/threat to Melissa | Court: Apply liberal notice pleading; accept well-pled facts and reasonable inferences; plaintiffs met plausibility to proceed against Lasting Hope and to amend regarding UNMC |
Key Cases Cited
- Munstermann v. Alegent Health, 271 Neb. 834, 716 N.W.2d 73 (2006) (psychiatrist has duty 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, 784 N.W.2d 907 (2010) (adopts Restatement (Third) approach that actor generally owes reasonable care when conduct creates risk; duty is legal/policy question)
- Ginapp v. City of Bellevue, 282 Neb. 1027, 809 N.W.2d 487 (2012) (discusses special-relationship duty to control third party conduct and cites Restatement provisions on custodial duties)
- Tryon v. City of North Platte, 295 Neb. 706, 890 N.W.2d 784 (2017) (motion to dismiss reviewed de novo; accept well-pled facts and reasonable inferences)
- Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228, 892 N.W.2d 857 (2017) (denial of leave to amend reviewed for abuse of discretion; futility reviewed de novo)
- Phillips v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 293 Neb. 123, 876 N.W.2d 361 (2016) (discusses duty as legal conclusion and standard of reasonable care)