Rodriguez v. Lasting Hope Recovery Ctr., 955 N.W.2d 707

Mikael Loyd was held at Lasting Hope Recovery Center under emergency protective custody and treated by psychiatrist Dr. Jeana Benton in August 2013.
During treatment Loyd expressed homicidal ideation toward his mother (and the staff warned the mother); he made no verbal threat to Dr. Benton or Lasting Hope staff naming or identifying Melissa as a future victim.
Benton discharged Loyd on August 14 after deciding he was stabilized; she did not notify Melissa or Omaha Police of the discharge. Loyd murdered Melissa on August 15.
Melissa’s parents (Special Administrators) sued Lasting Hope and UNMC Physicians for wrongful death, alleging failures to warn and to protect. The case survived an initial motion to dismiss (Rodriguez I) and proceeded to discovery.
Defendants moved for summary judgment; plaintiffs served six affidavits the day before the hearing which the district court excluded as untimely; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on duty grounds, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty to warn (psychiatrist)	Loyd ‘‘sufficiently communicated’’ threat to providers; psychiatrists should owe broader duty to warn third parties.	Munstermann and statutes limit psychiatrists’ duty: actual communication of a serious threat to the psychiatrist is required.	No duty to warn Melissa as a matter of law because Loyd never actually communicated a threat to Benton toward Melissa; Munstermann applies.
Duty to protect (custodial relationship)	Lasting Hope retained custody/control and breached duty by not turning Loyd over to police on Aug 12 and by discharging him prematurely without notice.	Even if some custody existed, the claim is controlled by Munstermann (psychiatrist’s limited duty); no duty arose because no actual communication to Benton about Melissa.	No duty to protect as matter of law; breach not actionable because Munstermann limits psychiatrists’ duty and no actual communication occurred.
Exclusion of affidavits (procedural)	Affidavits served the day before hearing complied with statute and should have been considered.	Affidavits were untimely and many were cumulative/hearsay; exclusion harmless.	Even if exclusion erred, error was not reversible because affidavits were cumulative or immaterial and plaintiffs show no prejudice.

Munstermann v. Alegent Health, 271 Neb. 834 (Neb. 2006) (establishes limited psychiatrist duty to warn/protect triggered only when patient actually communicates a serious threat to the psychiatrist)
Rodriguez v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 297 Neb. 1 (Neb. 2017) (Rodriguez I) (prior remand holding that plaintiffs’ pleadings could state a custodial-duty claim if facts showed actual communication and custodial control)
Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 17 Cal. 3d 425 (Cal. 1976) (origin of broad therapist duty to warn/protect that prompted many legislative limitations)
Ginapp v. City of Bellevue, 282 Neb. 1027 (Neb. 2012) (discusses special-relationship duty principles for custodians)