Rodriguez v. Catholic Health Initiatives
297 Neb. 1
| Neb. | 2017Background
- In August 2013 Mikael Loyd was placed under emergency protective custody after telling police he “expressed a desire to kill” and was transferred to Lasting Hope, a mental-health facility affiliated with CHI Health.
- A UNMC psychiatrist (Jane Doe Physician #1) evaluated Loyd within the statutory 36-hour period and concluded he was not dangerous.
- While at Lasting Hope, Loyd repeatedly called the victim, Melissa Rodriguez; Lasting Hope refused to release Loyd to police on August 12 citing an active protective hold.
- On August 14 Loyd left Lasting Hope unsupervised and later that day murdered Melissa; he returned to Lasting Hope and was arrested on August 16.
- Melissa’s parents sued Lasting Hope-related defendants (including CHI affiliates and contracting Noll entities) and UNMC (and the evaluating psychiatrist) for negligence/wrongful death; the district court dismissed all defendants for lack of duty and denied leave to amend as to UNMC.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed as to the Lasting Hope defendants (custodial duty) and reversed the denial of leave to amend as to UNMC, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lasting Hope owed a duty to the victim for harms caused by Loyd while in its custody | Lasting Hope had taken charge of Loyd under emergency protective custody and therefore owed a custodial duty to third parties to exercise reasonable care | Lasting Hope argued no duty to third parties existed absent a special communication identifying the victim | Court: Duty exists under Restatement (Third) §41 custodial special-relationship; allegations that Lasting Hope prevented police custody and failed to supervise/notify suffice to plead duty and breach — dismissal reversed |
| Whether UNMC (psychiatrist) owed a duty to warn/protect Melissa under mental-health statutes and case law | Plaintiff sought to amend complaint to allege Loyd communicated a serious threat to a reasonably identifiable victim (Melissa), thereby triggering statutory/common-law duty to warn/protect | UNMC argued plaintiff failed to allege that Loyd specifically threatened Melissa to the psychiatrist, so no duty arose; amendment would be futile | Court: Statutes and Munstermann require a communicated serious threat to a reasonably identifiable victim; proposed amendment plausibly alleged that requirement — denial of leave to amend was legal error; reversal and remand for further proceedings |
| Standard for evaluating proposed amendment after dismissal but before discovery | Plaintiff argued leave should be permitted because amendment would survive a 12(b)(6) challenge | Defendants argued amendment was futile and should be denied | Court: Where amendment is sought before discovery/summary judgment, futility is judged by whether the amended pleading could withstand a §6-1112(b)(6) motion; here it could, so leave should have been granted |
| Scope of mental-health practitioner liability (statutory limit vs. common law for psychiatrists) | Plaintiff: Psychiatrist may be liable under Munstermann if patient communicated serious threat of grave bodily harm to a reasonably identifiable victim | Defendants: Psychiatrist liability is limited and requires specific communication identifying the victim | Court: Statutory standard (serious threat to a reasonably identifiable victim) applies; Munstermann extends similar duty to psychiatrists; allegations (as amended) may meet that standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Munstermann v. Alegent Health, 271 Neb. 834 (duty to warn/protect arises only when patient communicates serious threat to a reasonably identifiable victim)
- A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205 (adopted Restatement (Third) approach to duty; actor ordinarily has duty when conduct creates risk)
- Ginapp v. City of Bellevue, 282 Neb. 1027 (custodial relationship and duty to control third party under Restatement principles)
- Peterson v. Kings Gate Partners, 290 Neb. 658 (adoption of Restatement (Third) special-relationship provisions in landlord-tenant context)
- Martensen v. Rejda Bros., 283 Neb. 279 (employer-employee special-relationship adoption)
- Tryon v. City of North Platte, 295 Neb. 706 (standard of review for dismissal)
- Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228 (standard for denial of leave to amend and futility review)
- Phillips v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 293 Neb. 123 (existence of duty as legal conclusion)
- Holloway v. State, 293 Neb. 12 (respondeat superior principles)
- Pittman v. Rivera, 293 Neb. 569 (elements of negligence)