Rodriguez v. Catholic Health Initiatives
297 Neb. 1
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Melissa Rodriguez was murdered on Aug. 14, 2013 by Mikael Loyd, who earlier had assaulted her; Loyd was placed under emergency protective custody and transferred to Lasting Hope (a mental health facility/affiliate of CHI Health).
- While at Lasting Hope (Aug. 8–14), Loyd was evaluated by a UNMC psychiatrist and found "not to be a danger to himself or others;" Loyd nonetheless made repeated phone calls to Melissa from the facility.
- OPD attempted to take Loyd into custody on an outstanding warrant on Aug. 12, but Lasting Hope refused to release him, representing the emergency hold remained in effect; Lasting Hope later failed to prevent Loyd leaving the facility on Aug. 14 and did not notify OPD or Melissa.
- Plaintiffs (Melissa’s parents as special administrators) sued Lasting Hope defendants, UNMC defendants, and city defendants for negligence/wrongful death; district court granted motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and denied leave to amend as to UNMC.
- Nebraska Supreme Court accepted plaintiffs’ well-pled factual allegations as true and reviewed de novo dismissal and futility of amendment; it reversed dismissal as to Lasting Hope 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 legal duty to protect Melissa from Loyd | Lasting Hope had custody/control of Loyd (refused OPD custody, failed to supervise/notify) creating a custodial special relationship and duty to third parties | No duty existed because plaintiffs didn’t plead a specific communication of a threat to Melissa or that defendants knew Loyd targeted her | Court: Duty exists under Restatement (Third) §41(b)(2) for custodians; facts pled show Lasting Hope took charge of Loyd and plausibly alleged breach and causation — reversal and remand |
| Whether UNMC psychiatrist (and employer) could be held liable / whether leave to amend was futile | UNMC evaluated Loyd under emergency-custody statute; plaintiffs proposed adding that Loyd communicated a serious threat identifying Melissa as a reasonably identifiable victim, which would trigger statutory/psychiatrist duty to warn/protect | Defendants argued complaint lacked allegation that Loyd communicated a serious threat to a reasonably identifiable victim; amendment would be futile | Court: Statutory and Munstermann framework permits liability if a serious threat was communicated; proposed amendment not futile and would survive a §6‑1112(b)(6) challenge — denial of leave to amend reversed and case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Munstermann v. Alegent Health, 271 Neb. 834, 716 N.W.2d 73 (2006) (psychiatrist’s duty to warn/protect arises 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) (adopts Restatement (Third) approach: actor ordinarily has duty to exercise reasonable care when conduct creates risk of physical harm)
- Ginapp v. City of Bellevue, 282 Neb. 1027, 809 N.W.2d 487 (2012) (discusses special-relationship duty to control third parties and reliance on Restatement provisions)
- Tryon v. City of North Platte, 295 Neb. 706, 890 N.W.2d 784 (2017) (standard of review for motion to dismiss: accept well-pled facts and reasonable inferences)
- Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228, 892 N.W.2d 857 (2017) (standards for reviewing denial of leave to amend; futility reviewed de novo)
- Phillips v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 293 Neb. 123, 876 N.W.2d 361 (2016) (discusses duty as legal conclusion and policy character of duty determinations)