Rodriguez v. Catholic Health Initiatives
297 Neb. 1
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Melissa Rodriguez was murdered on Aug. 14, 2013, by Mikael Loyd, who had been placed under emergency protective custody and admitted to Lasting Hope on Aug. 8 after expressing a desire to kill and being the subject of an OPD domestic-violence investigation.
- Loyd was evaluated at Lasting Hope by a UNMC psychiatrist (Jane Doe Physician #1) and found “not to be a danger to himself or others,” but remained at Lasting Hope through Aug. 14; Lasting Hope later represented it would not release Loyd to OPD on Aug. 12 because an EPC hold remained.
- While at Lasting Hope, Loyd repeatedly called Melissa from the facility; on Aug. 14 he left the facility unobserved and later killed Melissa; he returned and was arrested on Aug. 16.
- Melissa’s parents (special administrators) sued Lasting Hope-affiliated entities, Noll entities (staffing), UNMC/physician, and City defendants for negligence/wrongful death, alleging custodial duties and failure to warn/protect.
- District court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and denied leave to amend with respect to UNMC; appellants appealed.
- Nebraska Supreme Court reversed dismissal as to Lasting Hope (custodial duty found plausibly alleged) and reversed denial of leave to amend as to UNMC (proposed amendment would not be futile); remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lasting Hope owed a legal duty to third parties (Melissa) arising from custody of Loyd | Lasting Hope took charge of Loyd while on emergency protective custody and prevented OPD from taking him, creating a custodial special relationship and duty to exercise reasonable care | No special relationship/duty existed as pled; defendants argued no duty to control third-party conduct absent explicit communications of threat to a victim | Reversed district court: pleadings plausibly allege Lasting Hope had custody/control of Loyd under Restatement (Third) §41(b)(2) and thus owed a duty to third parties; claim survives dismissal |
| Whether UNMC/psychiatrist owed duty to warn/protect Melissa under Nebraska law | Physician evaluated Loyd pursuant to EPC statute and, given Loyd’s prior threats/calls and facts known to evaluators, could be liable if a serious threat to a reasonably identifiable victim was communicated; proposed amendment would explicitly allege such a communication regarding Melissa | Defendants argued complaint lacked an allegation that Loyd communicated a specific threat against Melissa, so statutorily-limited duty to warn did not arise; amendment would be futile | Reversed district court’s denial of leave to amend: proposed amendment is not futile under Rule 12(b)(6); under Munstermann/statutes, claim against psychiatrist/UNMC can survive dismissal if complaint alleges communicated serious threat to a reasonably identifiable victim |
| Standard for review of dismissal and denial to amend | N/A (procedural) | N/A | Court applied de novo review to dismissal and to legal futility of amendment; abuse-of-discretion for denial to amend but reviewed legal futility de novo |
| Whether dismissal as to City defendants should stand (not appealed) | N/A | N/A | Not before this court on appeal; district court dismissal as to City defendants was not challenged here |
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) (adopted Restatement (Third) approach to duty and special-relationship analysis)
- Ginapp v. City of Bellevue, 282 Neb. 1027, 809 N.W.2d 487 (2012) (discussed custodial special-relationship duty to control dangerous persons taken into charge)
- Tryon v. City of North Platte, 295 Neb. 706, 890 N.W.2d 784 (2017) (standard of review for motions to dismiss)
- Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228, 892 N.W.2d 857 (2017) (standard for reviewing denial of leave to amend and futility evaluated under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Peterson v. Kings Gate Partners, 290 Neb. 658, 861 N.W.2d 444 (2015) (examples of special-relationship duties adopted from Restatement (Third))