Rodriguez v. Catholic Health Initiatives
297 Neb. 1
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Melissa Rodriguez was murdered by Mikael Loyd after he was held on emergency protective custody and transferred to Lasting Hope recovery facility; Loyd had prior assaults and an outstanding arrest warrant related to Melissa.
- Loyd was admitted to Lasting Hope (Aug 8–14, 2013); UNMC psychiatrist (Jane Doe Physician #1) evaluated him and found him "not a danger"; Lasting Hope later failed to prevent Loyd from leaving and did not notify police or Melissa that he left; Loyd killed Melissa on Aug 14.
- Plaintiffs (Melissa’s parents as special administrators) sued three defendant groups: Lasting Hope defendants (facility, affiliates, contractors/employees), UNMC defendants (physician/employer), and City defendants (police); district court dismissed all claims for failure to state a duty-based negligence claim.
- The district court held Lasting Hope/UNMC owed no duty because Loyd did not specifically communicate a threat to Melissa; plaintiffs moved to amend to add an explicit allegation that Loyd communicated a serious threat against a reasonably identifiable victim (Melissa).
- Nebraska Supreme Court reversed as to Lasting Hope (finding a custodial special-relationship duty adequate at pleading stage) and reversed the denial of leave to amend as to UNMC (statutory and Munstermann duty-to-warn theory could be plausibly alleged).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lasting Hope owed a duty to third parties (Melissa) for harms posed by Loyd while in its custody | Lasting Hope took charge of Loyd (emergency custody, refused police custody, prevented release) creating a custodial special relationship and duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm | No special relationship/duty; defendants argued facts did not establish custody/control sufficient to impose duty | Reversed district court — pleadings sufficiently allege custody and a custodial duty under Restatement (Third) §41(b)(2); claim plausible at pleading stage |
| Whether UNMC (psychiatrist/employer) could be held liable for failing to warn/protect Melissa under statutory/psychiatrist duty | Physician’s evaluation occurred within emergency custody context; adding explicit allegation that Loyd communicated a serious threat to a reasonably identifiable victim (Melissa) makes a duty-to-warn claim viable | Dismissal and denial to amend were proper because complaint lacked an allegation that Loyd specifically threatened Melissa; amendment would be futile | Reversed denial of leave to amend — proposed amendment not futile; under statutes and Munstermann a psychiatrist can owe duty when patient communicates a serious threat to a reasonably identifiable victim, so claim could survive §6-1112(b)(6) challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Munstermann v. Alegent Health, 271 Neb. 834 (duty to warn for psychiatrists arises only where patient communicates a serious threat to a reasonably identifiable victim)
- A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205 (adoption of Restatement (Third) approach to duty and reasonable-care framework)
- Ginapp v. City of Bellevue, 282 Neb. 1027 (custodial special-relationship principles and duty to control third parties)
- Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228 (standard of review for denial of leave to amend and futility analysis)
- Tryon v. City of North Platte, 295 Neb. 706 (de novo review standard for motion to dismiss)
- Phillips v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 293 Neb. 123 (discussion of duty as legal conclusion and policy decision)