Rodriguez v. Catholic Health Initiatives
297 Neb. 1
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Melissa Rodriguez was murdered by Mikael Loyd after Loyd had been placed in emergency protective custody and transferred to Lasting Hope recovery facility in August 2013.
- While at Lasting Hope, Loyd was evaluated by a UNMC psychiatrist (Jane Doe Physician #1) within the statutory 36-hour window and was found "not to be a danger to himself or others."
- Loyd repeatedly called Melissa from Lasting Hope, had an outstanding arrest warrant for assaulting Melissa, and told police he "expressed a desire to kill" before being taken into custody.
- Lasting Hope refused to release Loyd to Omaha police on August 12 despite their attempt to arrest him; on August 14 Loyd left Lasting Hope unsupervised and later killed Melissa that day.
- Melissa's parents (Angela and Adan Rodriguez), as special administrators, sued Lasting Hope-related defendants (including CHI affiliates and Noll entities) and UNMC defendants for negligence/wrongful death; the district court dismissed claims against those defendants and denied leave to amend as to UNMC.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed dismissal as to Lasting Hope defendants and reversed 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 protect third parties (Melissa) given custody of Loyd | Lasting Hope took charge of Loyd (prevented police from taking him, maintained custody) and thus owed a custodial duty to third parties | No duty existed absent a specific communicated threat to the victim; Lasting Hope did not have sufficient control giving rise to a duty | Court held Lasting Hope had custody/control under Restatement (Third) §41(b)(2) and therefore owed a duty; dismissal reversed and remanded |
| Whether allegations plausibly stated breach, causation, and damages against Lasting Hope | Allegations show failure to supervise, failure to notify police, and failure to warn Melissa after Loyd left — plausibly alleging breach and proximate cause | Defendants argued facts insufficient as pled to show breach or causation | Court held allegations were sufficient to survive a 12(b)(6) challenge; claims may proceed |
| Whether UNMC psychiatrist owed a statutory/ common-law duty to warn/protect given Loyd's evaluation result | Rodriguez sought to amend complaint to allege Loyd communicated a serious threat toward a reasonably identifiable victim (Melissa), bringing statutory duty into play | Defendants argued no allegation that Loyd communicated a serious threat to an identifiable victim; amendment would be futile | Court held proposed amendment was not futile under 12(b)(6); under Munstermann/statutory framework a duty can arise if a patient communicated a serious threat to an identifiable victim — denial of leave to amend reversed |
| Standard for denying leave to amend post-dismissal but pre-discovery | Rodriguez argued leave should be allowed because amendment could cure pleading deficiencies and discovery not complete | Defendants argued undue delay/futility justified denial | Court applied standard from Estermann and Bailey: amendment denied as futile only if it could not survive a rule 12(b)(6) motion; held amendment here could survive and thus should have been allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Munstermann v. Alegent Health, 271 Neb. 834, 716 N.W.2d 73 (2006) (psychiatrist duty to warn arises only where patient communicated a serious threat of physical violence to an 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 where actor's conduct creates risk of physical harm)
- Ginapp v. City of Bellevue, 282 Neb. 1027, 809 N.W.2d 487 (2012) (discusses special relationships and custodial duty to control third parties)
- Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228, 892 N.W.2d 857 (2017) (standard of review for denial of leave to amend; futility reviewed de novo)
- Tryon v. City of North Platte, 295 Neb. 706, 890 N.W.2d 784 (2017) (standard for reviewing dismissals under rule 12(b)(6))
- Phillips v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 293 Neb. 123, 876 N.W.2d 361 (2016) (duty as legal conclusion to exercise reasonable care under circumstances)
- Holloway v. State, 293 Neb. 12, 875 N.W.2d 435 (2016) (respondeat superior and employer liability for employee acts)