Avitia v. Crisis Preparation & Recovery Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1 CA-CV 21-0083 |
| Citation | 83 Arizona Cases Digest 4,521 P.3d 373 |
| Parties | Samuel AVITIA, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CRISIS PREPARATION AND RECOVERY INC., Defendant/Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
McCain & Bursh Attorneys at Law, P.C., Scottsdale, By Darius O. Bursh, Marc D. McCain, Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant
Kennedy Kemmet PLLC, Phoenix, By Jill M. Kennedy, Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant
Resnick & Louis PC, Scottsdale, By Carol M. Romano, Mitchell J. Resnick, Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
Greenberg Traurig LLP, Phoenix, By Jon T. Neumann, Adrianna Griego Gorton, Counsel for Intervenor
¶1 Samuel Avitia, the father of infant twin boys drowned by their mother ("Mother"), filed a wrongful death suit against various defendants, including Crisis Preparation and Recovery, Inc. ("Crisis Prep"). Avitia claimed Crisis Prep's employees were in part responsible for the twins’ deaths. Finding Crisis Prep owed no duty, the superior court granted summary judgment in its favor, and Avitia appealed.
¶2 As discussed below, Crisis Prep did not owe (1) a tort duty arising under a statute to report Mother to a peace officer or the Department of Child Safety ("DCS") under Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 13-3620 or (2) a duty to warn caregivers and protect the twins as "foreseeable" victims within the "zone of danger." Accordingly, we affirm.
¶3 Avitia's twins were born in 2013. Avitia and Mother never married and lived separately.
¶4 In accordance with a custody order, the twins were in Avitia's care half the time. Mother lived primarily in her mother's extended-family home and, at times, in her father's apartment. The twins were often cared for by their maternal grandmother. Mother and her family had told Avitia that Mother had serious mental health issues, including suicidal ideations
, had been hospitalized to address those issues, and that the twins were cared for by Mother's family when necessary.
¶5 Mother had suffered from mental health problems for several years, and she had been seen and treated by numerous mental health professionals. Crisis Prep, which performs pre-petition emergent screenings of persons for court-ordered involuntary evaluation and treatment, evaluated Mother on multiple occasions.
¶6 In May 2011, Crisis Prep personnel twice sought to evaluate Mother while she was receiving mental health treatment at a behavioral hospital, but they could not do so due to Mother's mental state and refusal to participate. In October 2013, Joanne Sanderl, a Crisis Prep licensed professional counselor, evaluated Mother and determined that she did not meet the criteria for seriously mentally ill ("SMI") status while receiving inpatient mental health treatment from another provider.
¶7 In April 2014, Mother suffered an extreme psychotic episode, and Sanderl evaluated her in an emergency room. Mother's mother told Sanderl she was "terrified" for Mother to be alone with the twins and that the family was concerned as to how she would behave with them. Sanderl advised Mother that if she did not voluntarily agree to be transferred for additional inpatient evaluation, treatment, and stabilization, Sanderl would petition for involuntary treatment. Mother then tried unsuccessfully to leave the hospital, assaulting hospital personnel in the process.
¶8 The next day, another Crisis Prep licensed professional counselor, Ann Williams, initiated the process for Mother to receive involuntary court-ordered evaluation and treatment, alleging that Mother was a danger to herself and others. Mother's mother and stepfather had told Williams that Mother had threatened to harm the twins’ babysitters and, as a result, Mother's mother was caring for the twins. Mother was transferred to another provider, which petitioned for court-ordered evaluation based on allegations that she was a danger to self, a danger to others, and persistently or acutely disabled. Mother was eventually taken to a behavioral health center for evaluation and treatment.
¶9 Mother was then evaluated by several doctors and, in early May 2014, a licensed master social worker from Crisis Prep, Erin O'Toole, performed a level-of-care assessment. O'Toole noted that Mother was able to care for herself and the twins most of the time, and that when compliant with her medications she functioned well. O'Toole determined that Mother did not qualify for SMI status and instead qualified for General Mental Health Services. A Regional Behavioral Health Authority evaluator reviewing the decision disagreed, however, concluding Mother was SMI, had poor insight into her illness, needed treatment, and "[i]f left untreated she will likely have more episodes, and may be a serious risk of harm to herself and others."
¶10 A few days later, the superior court held an evidentiary hearing—at which Williams testified—on a petition for court-ordered treatment. The court found Mother was a danger to herself and persistently or acutely disabled, but not a danger to others, then ordered Mother to undergo combined inpatient and outpatient treatment until she was no longer a danger to herself or persistently or acutely disabled. The record does not reflect that Crisis Prep employees saw or provided any professional mental health services to Mother after May 2014.
¶11 More than fifteen months later, in August 2015, Mother drowned the two-year-old twins in a bathtub after hearing voices in her head telling her to do so. She was found guilty except insane for the first degree murder of the twins and attempted murder of another family member, and she was ordered confined to the Arizona State Hospital.
¶12 One year after the twins’ deaths, Avitia filed this wrongful death complaint against the state, the county, and numerous health care providers. As to Crisis Prep, Avitia's claims included negligence; medical negligence; negligent oversight, training, retention, and supervision; and respondeat superior (vicarious liability). Avitia asserted Crisis Prep had a duty to report Mother's abuse or neglect of the twins, including endangerment, and had not done so, and that Crisis Prep had also failed in a duty to warn and protect the twins.
¶13 After the completion of discovery, co-defendant Dignity Health d/b/a St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center ("Dignity") moved for summary judgment. Crisis Prep joined the motion, arguing (1) it had no statutory duty to report Mother to DCS or the police under A.R.S. § 13-3620 because there was no evidence that abuse or neglect had occurred; (2) there was no common law duty to warn others or protect the twins, and to the extent there was, Crisis Prep had fulfilled it by recommending inpatient mental health treatment for Mother; (3) given the length of time that passed, Avitia could show no causal link between Crisis Prep's actions and the twins’ deaths; and (4) public policy considerations supported granting summary judgment.
¶14 After oral argument on the Dignity and Crisis Prep motions, the superior court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants,1 explaining that "Mother was undergoing court-ordered treatment," and they had no "duty to report [M]other's condition to [DCS] or any other State agency." The court declined to reach the causation issue because its ruling was focused solely on whether the defendants owed a duty to report.
¶15 Avitia then filed (1) a motion for reconsideration and/or clarification, and (2) an objection to Crisis Prep's notice of lodging a proposed form of judgment, both of which the superior court denied. The court then entered a partial final judgment dismissing all claims against Crisis Prep. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 54(b).
¶16 Avitia timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 12-2101(A)(1) and 12-120.21(A)(1).
¶17 We review de novo the superior court's grant of summary judgment, construing the facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Avitia, the opposing party. Andrews v. Blake , 205 Ariz. 236, 240, ¶ 12, 69 P.3d 7, 11 (2003) ; Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund , 201 Ariz. 474, 482, ¶ 13, 38 P.3d 12, 20 (2002). Summary judgment is appropriate when "the moving party shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ; accord Orme Sch. v. Reeves , 166 Ariz. 301, 305, 802 P.2d 1000, 1004 (1990). We will affirm summary judgment if the superior court's ruling is correct for any reason. Melendez v. Hallmark Ins. Co. , 232 Ariz. 327, 330, ¶ 9, 305 P.3d 392, 395 (App. 2013) (citation omitted); Rowland v. Great States Ins. Co. , 199 Ariz. 577, 581, ¶ 6, 20 P.3d 1158, 1162 (App. 2001).
¶18 To establish an Arizona common law negligence claim, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) a legal duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of care; (2) the defendant's breach of that duty; (3) a causal connection between the defendant's breach and the plaintiff's resulting injury; and (4) damages. Quiroz v. ALCOA Inc. , 243 Ariz. 560, 563-64, ¶ 7, 416 P.3d 824, 827-28 (2018) ; Ontiveros v. Borak , 136 Ariz. 500, 504, 667 P.2d 200, 204 (1983) (citing William L. Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts § 30, at 143 (4th ed. 1971); Wisener v. State , 123 Ariz. 148, 149, 598 P.2d 511, 512 (1979) ).
¶19 Generally, a duty is an "obligation, recognized by law, which requires the defendant to conform to a particular standard of conduct in order to protect others against unreasonable risks of harm." Gipson v. Kasey , 214 Ariz. 141, 143, ¶ 10, 150 P.3d 228, 230 (2007) (quoting Markowitz v. Ariz. Parks Bd. , 146 Ariz. 352, 354, 706 P.2d 364, 366...
To continue reading
Request your trial