Torres v. Faxton St. Lukes Healthcare — Jan. 2017 (Summary)

NEGLIGENCE

Torres v. Faxton St. Lukes Healthcare
6:16-CV-439 (LEAD) (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2017)

The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York ruled that a physician and hospital owed a duty to family members of a patient who were killed by the patient after he was released from the hospital’s Emergency Department in an impaired mental state.  Accordingly, the court rejected the physician’s and hospital’s motions to dismiss the lawsuits filed against them by the estates of the slain family members.

The case arose out of the physician’s and hospital’s care of a former patient. After being detained following a violent altercation with his uncle, the former patient was transported to the hospital for a mental health evaluation. Before leaving the hospital, the officer that detained the patient provided his contact information to the physician and stated that the police should be notified prior to the patient’s release. Subsequently, the attending physician issued a restraint order based on his determination that the patient might pose a danger to himself and ordered a CT scan.

After the CT scan and drug screening, the attending nurses noted that the patient remained cognitively impaired, combative, and aggressive. However, two hours later the physician mistakenly ordered the patient’s discharge from the hospital, even though the hospital staff had continued to observe the patient acting erratically. The patient was discharged from the hospital a few hours later with a diagnosis of anxiety and panic attacks. Once he returned home, the patient murdered his sister, aunt, and uncle.

The court rejected the physician’s argument that he did not owe the patient’s family members a duty of care.  The court reasoned it is the risk of harm to identifiable third parties who the physician knows or should know are relying on the physician’s treatment decisions that outlines the nature of the duty in these cases. Accordingly, because the physician was aware of the circumstances under which the patient was removed from, observed the patient’s violent behavior while at the hospital, and failed to perform or request a mental evaluation, the court found that the physician knew or should have known that the decedents were relying on him to exercise proper medical judgment.

Additionally, the court reasoned, that under the circumstances, the hospital also owed the decedents a duty, finding that the estates plausibly alleged that the hospital owed the decedents a duty to control the patient or notify the police of the patient’s discharge.