Davis v. Edgewater Sys. for Balanced Living, Inc.
Decision Date | 25 August 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 45A05–1412–CT–588.,45A05–1412–CT–588. |
Citation | 42 N.E.3d 524 |
Parties | John B. DAVIS, Sr., as Administrator of the Estate of John B. Davis, Jr., Deceased, Appellant–Petitioner, v. EDGEWATER SYSTEMS FOR BALANCED LIVING, INC., Appellee–Respondent. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Steven J. Sersic, Kevin C. Smith, Smith Sersic, Munster, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
Michael G. Getty, Brad R. Pero, Hunt Suedhoff Kalamaros, LLP, St. Joseph, MI, Attorneys for Appellee.
, Judge.
[1] Appellant–Petitioner, John B. Davis, Sr., as Administrator of the Estate of John B. Davis, Jr., Deceased (Davis), appeals the trial court's grant of Appellee–Respondent's, Edgewater Systems for Balanced Living, Inc. (Edgewater), motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(C)
.
[2] We affirm.
[3] Davis raises three issues on appeal, of which we find two issues dispositive and which we restate as:
[4] Edgewater is a community mental health center, specialized in dealing with psychiatric crises, including those involving patients with homicidal tendencies, acute psychotic symptoms, sudden changes in mental status, or other types of mental health issues. At all relevant times, Jamal Gore (Gore) was a patient at Edgewater, receiving medical health care. On May 17, 2010, Edgewater requested an emergency detention of Gore pursuant to I.C. Art. 12– 26, which was supported by a licensed physician. The emergency request averred that Gore was non-compliant with his medication, confrontational, aggressive, paranoid, “irritable and getting into fights with people.” (Appellant's App. p. 22). On May 17, 2010, at approximately 12:45 p.m., the emergency detention request was granted by the Gary City; Court. Edgewater sent the order to the Gary police department by facsimile, which was received by the department that same day at about 2:28 p.m. There is no evidence the detention order was executed. On May 24, 2010, Gore killed John Davis, Jr. Gore was prosecuted for murder and found guilty but mentally ill. On October 31, 2012, during the murder proceedings against Gore, Davis learned of the alleged negligence of Edgewater through the testimony of an Edgewater employee.
[5] On May 1, 2014, Davis filed his Complaint against Edgewater, alleging Edgewater “failed to exercise ordinary due diligence or care to follow up on the [emergency detention] order or secure or ensure its enforcements from the time the order was obtained up to and including the time, seven days later, on May 24, 2010, when Gore killed John B. Davis, Jr.” (Appellant's App. p. 8). On July 14, 2014, Edgewater filed its Answer, as well as a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(C)
. On September 12, 2014, Davis filed a response to Edgewater's motion and requested, in the alternative, to convert Edgewater's motion to a T.R. 12(B)(6) motion. On September 24, 2014, Edgewater responded to Davis' alternate request. On November 20, 2014, the trial court conducted a hearing on Edgewater's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The following day, the trial court entered an order, granting Edgewater's motion.
[6] Davis now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
[7] Davis contends that the trial court abused its discretion in granting Edgewater's motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to T.R. 12(C)
. Specifically, he claims that Edgewater is not civilly immune from the lawsuit.
[8] We review de novo a trial court's ruling on a T.R. 12(C)
motion for judgment on the pleadings. Bell v. Bryant, 2 N.E.3d 716, 719 (Ind.Ct.App.2013). When reviewing a T.R. 12(C) motion, we consider any facts of which we may take judicial notice. Id. Also, we accept as true the well-pleaded material facts alleged in the complaint, and base our ruling solely on the pleadings. Murray v. City of Lawrenceburg, 925 N.E.2d 728, 731 (Ind.2010). “The ‘pleadings' consist of a complaint and an answer, a reply to any counterclaim, an answer to a cross-claim, a third-party complaint, and an answer to a third-party complaint.” Consol. Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Water Servs. LLC, 994 N.E.2d 1192, 1196 (Ind.Ct.App.2013) (quoting Waldrip v. Waldrip, 976 N.E.2d 102, 110 (Ind.Ct.App.2012) ). “Pleadings” also consist of any written instruments attached to a pleading. See T.R. 10(C) (). A motion for judgment on the pleadings under T.R. 12(C) should be granted “only where it is clear from the face of the complaint that under no circumstances could relief be granted.” Murray, 925 N.E.2d at 731.
[9] In its motion, Edgewater advanced that it was entitled to civil immunity for the claims asserted against it based upon two sub-sections of the mental health care provider immunity statute, included at I.C. §§ 34–30–16–1
& –2. As originally enacted in 1987, I.C. § 34–4–12.4–3 recognized the common law duty of a mental health service provider to warn potential victims of patient-inflicted violence. The statute also clarified the conditions a mental health service provider must satisfy to qualify for immunity from civil liability. In 1998, the statute was amended and recodified as Indiana Code section 34–30–16–1. The current version of the statute provides, in pertinent part, that:
[10] Once a mental health service provider's duty is triggered, the provider may discharge this duty in one of five ways. Specifically:
.
[11] Without having to decide whether the span of seven days between the trial court's emergency detention order and the murder qualifies as an “imminent danger” under I.C. § 34–30–16–1
, we conclude that Edgewater was discharged from its duty—assuming a duty arose under I.C. § 34–30–16–1 —to warn or to take reasonable precautions pursuant to I.C. § 34–30–16–2(2) & (3).
[12] First, under section 2 of the statute, the duty to warn or to take reasonable precautions created by section 1 is properly discharged by a mental health service provider if “reasonable efforts” were undertaken “to notify a police department or other law enforcement agency[.]” See I.C. § 34–30–16–2(2)
. Here, the trial court decided that “Edgewater's conduct in faxing the Emergency Order constituted ‘reasonable effort.’ ” We agree, to a certain extent.
By faxing the emergency order to the Gary police department and noting the Department's receipt of the order, Edgewater's actions went beyond a “reasonable effort” and rather constitute an actual and successful notification of the Gary police department.
[13] However, Davis now attempts to broaden the “reasonable effort” language of the statute by imposing a duty on Edgewater to follow up on the notification and to ensure that the police department took action. In construing a statute, it is just as important to recognize what a statute does not say as it is to recognize what it does say. United Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steele, 622 N.E.2d 557, 561 (Ind.Ct.App.1993)
, reh'g denied. As such, “[w]e may not read into the statute that which is not the expressed intent of the legislature.” Id. Because the statute only directs a mental health provider to undertake “reasonable efforts” without more in order to be discharged of its duty and to be entitled to civil immunity, and is silent as to any further action on the part of the mental health provider, we decline to enlarge the statutory language to incorporate a duty as suggested by Davis.
[14] Furthermore, Edgewater sought and obtained an emergency detention order for Gore. Pursuant to I.C. § 34–30–16–2(3)
, a mental health provider's duty to warn is discharged if a “civil commitment of the patient under [I.C. Art.] 12–26” is sought. In Indiana, an adult person may be civilly committed either voluntarily or involuntarily under carefully delineated statutory provisions. Indiana Article 12–26 provides that involuntary commitment may occur under four circumstances: (1)...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mills v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs.
...judgment on the pleadings. We review the grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings de novo. Davis v. Edgewater Sys. For Balanced Living, Inc. , 42 N.E.3d 524, 526 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). A motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted only "where it is clear from the face of th......
-
ESPN, Inc. v. Univ. of Notre Dame Sec. Police Dep't
...[18] We review a trial court's ruling on a T.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings de novo. Davis v. Edgewater Sys. for Balanced Living, Inc., 42 N.E.3d 524, 526 (Ind.Ct.App.2015). Such a motion attacks the legal sufficiency of the pleadings. Midwest Psychological Ctr., Inc. v. Ind.......
-
Ind. Office of Util. Consumer Counselor v. Citizens Wastewater of Westfield, LLC
...just as important to recognize what a statute does not say as it is to recognize what it does say. Davis v. Edgewater Syst. For Balanced Living, Inc. , 42 N.E.3d 524, 528 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). "[P]aramount consideration must be given to the basic principle that two statutes that apply to th......
-
Coplan v. Miller
...as important to recognize what [the] statute does not say as it is to recognize what it does say." Davis v. Edgewater Sys. For Balanced Living, Inc. , 42 N.E.3d 524, 528 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).[22] Furthermore, requiring a provider to take protective measures even when a potential victim is a......