Rodriguez v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 297 Neb. 1

Background

On Aug. 8, 2013, Mikael Loyd, taken into emergency protective custody after telling police he “expressed a desire to kill,” was transferred to Lasting Hope (a mental‑health facility affiliated with CHI entities).
Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 71‑919, Loyd received a mental‑health evaluation by Jane Doe Physician #1 (UNMC) who found him not dangerous; Loyd remained at Lasting Hope through Aug. 14.
While at Lasting Hope, Loyd repeatedly called the decedent Melissa Rodriguez; Lasting Hope allegedly knew of an outstanding arrest warrant for Loyd connected to prior assaults on Melissa.
On Aug. 12 officers attempted to arrest Loyd at Lasting Hope; the facility refused to release him, asserting the emergency hold remained in effect. On Aug. 14 Loyd left Lasting Hope unattended and later that day killed Melissa.
Plaintiffs (Melissa’s parents as special administrators) sued Lasting Hope/CHI/Noll entities ("Lasting Hope defendants"), UNMC and its physician ("UNMC defendants"), and City defendants for negligence/wrongful death; district court dismissed all 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 to control Loyd	Custodial relationship existed because Lasting Hope had taken charge of Loyd (refused police custody) and thus owed a duty to protect foreseeable victims like Melissa	No special duty existed to control Loyd or warn Melissa under the pleaded facts	Court: Duty existed — allegations show custody/control under Restatement (Third) §41(b)(2); reversal and remand as to Lasting Hope defendants
Whether UNMC physician owed duty to warn/protect Melissa	Physician’s evaluation occurred in emergency‑custody context; plaintiffs sought to add an allegation that Loyd communicated a serious threat to a reasonably identifiable victim (Melissa)	UNMC argued complaint lacked an allegation that Loyd communicated a specific threat to Melissa; amendment would be futile	Court: Proposed amendment not futile under statutes and Munstermann; leave to amend should have been granted; reversal and remand as to UNMC defendants
Whether district court properly denied leave to amend after dismissal	Plaintiffs argued amendment was timely (before discovery/summary judgment) and could survive a 12(b)(6) challenge	District court held amendment futile because complaint lacked a direct allegation that Loyd threatened Melissa	Court: Reviewed de novo and held denial was error; amendment could state a claim under applicable law
Pleading standard on motion to dismiss	Plaintiffs relied on notice‑pleading and that factual inferences permit discovery to prove elements	Defendants relied on requirement that a mental‑health practitioner be communicated a serious threat to a reasonably identifiable victim	Court: Applied Nebraska notice‑pleading; accepted well‑pled facts and reasonable inferences; plausible claims survive dismissal

Key Cases Cited

Munstermann v. Alegent Health, 271 Neb. 834, 716 N.W.2d 73 (2006) (psychiatrist liable to warn/protect only when patient communicates a serious threat 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 to duty; actor ordinarily owes reasonable care when conduct creates risk)
Ginapp v. City of Bellevue, 282 Neb. 1027, 809 N.W.2d 487 (2012) (discusses custodial special‑relationship duty to control dangerous third parties)
Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228, 892 N.W.2d 857 (2017) (standard for reviewing denial of leave to amend; futility reviewed de novo)
Tryon v. City of North Platte, 295 Neb. 706, 890 N.W.2d 784 (2017) (motion to dismiss standard; accept well‑pled facts and reasonable inferences)