Rodriguez v. Catholic Health Initiatives
297 Neb. 1
Neb.2017Background
- On Aug. 8, 2013, Mikael Loyd was placed under emergency protective custody after expressing a desire to kill and was transferred to Lasting Hope, a mental-health facility affiliated with CHI/Lasting Hope defendants.
- A UNMC psychiatrist (Jane Doe Physician #1) evaluated Loyd within the §71-919 timeframe and concluded he was "not a danger to himself or others."
- While at Lasting Hope, Loyd repeatedly called the victim, Melissa Rodriguez; OPD later sought to arrest Loyd on an outstanding warrant but was told Lasting Hope would not release him while the EPC hold remained in effect.
- On Aug. 14, 2013, Loyd left Lasting Hope unobserved and later that day killed Melissa; he returned to Lasting Hope and was arrested two days later.
- Plaintiffs (Melissa’s parents as special administrators) sued Lasting Hope/CHI-related defendants, UNMC/psychiatrist, and City defendants for negligence/wrongful death; the district court dismissed all defendants 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) for harms posed by a person in its custody | Lasting Hope had taken charge of Loyd under EPC and therefore owed a custodial duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent harms to third parties | No special relationship/duty existed because plaintiffs did not allege communications showing a threat to Melissa specifically | Court: Lasting Hope had custody/control of Loyd under the facts alleged; special custodial relationship under Restatement (Third) §41(b)(2) created a duty; dismissal reversed and remanded |
| Whether UNMC/psychiatrist owed a statutory/common-law duty to warn/protect Melissa absent a communicated serious threat to an identifiable victim | Allegations (EPC context, Loyd’s prior violence toward Melissa, repeated calls, and that Loyd "expressed a desire to kill") plausibly show Loyd communicated a serious threat to an identifiable victim; proposed amendment would expressly allege Melissa was a reasonably identifiable victim | Defendant: Statutory scheme limits liability to situations where the patient communicated a serious threat to a reasonably identifiable victim; plaintiff’s complaint lacked that specific allegation so no duty | Court: Proposed amendment would not be futile; under Munstermann and the mental-health statutes, the pleadings (with amendment) could state a claim; denial of leave to amend and dismissal of UNMC reversed and remanded |
| Whether district court properly denied leave to amend after dismissal | Plaintiffs argued amendment was timely (before discovery/summary judgment) and would cure pleading defects | Defendants argued amendment would be futile | Court: Denial was erroneous; under Rule 12(b)(6) futility standard, the proposed amendment could survive a dismissal motion, so leave should have been granted |
| Pleading standard applicable to negligence/duty questions on motion to dismiss | Plaintiffs: Liberal notice pleading; facts need only make claim plausible and allow for discovery | Defendants: Require specific communication of threat to identified victim to establish duty | Court: Applied Nebraska’s liberal notice pleading; accepted well-pled facts and reasonable inferences; dismissal improper where facts plausibly show custody/duty or where amendment could cure defect |
Key Cases Cited
- Munstermann v. Alegent Health, 271 Neb. 834 (2006) (psychiatrist’s duty to warn/protect arises only when patient communicates a serious threat to a reasonably identifiable victim)
- Tryon v. City of North Platte, 295 Neb. 706 (2017) (standard of review for motion to dismiss; accept well-pled facts and reasonable inferences)
- Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228 (2017) (review standard for denial of leave to amend; legal futility reviewed de novo)
- Ginapp v. City of Bellevue, 282 Neb. 1027 (2012) (custodial special-relationship duty to control third parties)
- A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205 (2010) (adoption of Restatement (Third) approach to duty; duty arises when actor’s conduct creates risk)
- Phillips v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 293 Neb. 123 (2016) (existence of duty framed as legal conclusion; duty rules serve public policy)