Nguyen v. Mass. Inst. Tech
| Citation | 479 Mass. 436,96 N.E.3d 128 |
| Decision Date | 07 May 2018 |
| Docket Number | SJC–12329 |
| Parties | DZUNG DUY NGUYEN, administrator, v. MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & others. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
479 Mass. 436
96 N.E.3d 128
DZUNG DUY NGUYEN, administrator,1
v.
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & others.2
SJC–12329
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex..
Argued November 7, 2017
Decided May 7, 2018
Jeffrey S. Beeler, Natick, for the plaintiff.
Kevin P. Martin (Yvonne W. Chan also present), Boston, for the defendants.
Alan D. Rose, B. Aidan Flanagan, & Antonio Moriello, Boston, for Amherst College & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief.
Jonathan A. Karon, Boston, Thomas R. Murphy, Salem, Mark F. Itzkowitz, Boston, & Lisa DeBrosse Johnson, for Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.
Present: Gants, C.J., Gaziano, Lowy, Cypher, & Kafker, JJ.
KAFKER, J.
The plaintiff, Dzung Duy Nguyen, commenced a wrongful death action against the defendants, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), MIT Professors Birger Wernerfelt and Drazen Prelec, and MIT assistant dean David W. Randall, arising out of the suicide of his son, Han Duy Nguyen (Nguyen). The defendants are alleged to have been negligent in not preventing Nguyen's suicide. The motion judge allowed summary judgment for MIT and the individual defendants, finding no duty to prevent Nguyen's suicide. Although we conclude that, in certain circumstances not present here, a special relationship and a corresponding duty to take reasonable measures to prevent suicide may be created between a university and its student, we affirm the decision of the motion judge that the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.3
Background. We summarize the facts in the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 114, 928 N.E.2d 327 (2010). We reserve additional facts for our discussion of the legal issues.
1. The parties. At the time of his death on June 2, 2009, Nguyen was a twenty-five year old graduate student in the marketing
program at MIT's Sloan School of Management (Sloan) and lived off-campus. Prelec was a Sloan faculty member and served as Nguyen's graduate research advisor. Wernerfelt was a Sloan faculty member and head of the Marketing Group Ph.D. program whose responsibility included advising graduate students concerning their coursework and research. Randall was an assistant dean in MIT's student support services (student support) office.
2. MIT support resources. In May, 2007, after his first academic year at MIT and two years before his death, Nguyen contacted Sloan's Ph.D. program coordinator, Sharon Cayley, for assistance with test-taking problems. Nguyen explained to Cayley that he was "failing all of my classes because I don't know how to take [examinations (exams) ]. I know the course material, but it just won't happen for me on exams." Cayley then referred Nguyen to an MIT student disability services office coordinator, who described some of MIT's accommodations for individuals with disabilities. Nguyen declined such accommodations. In her notes from her meeting with Nguyen, the coordinator wrote that Nguyen "does not want to connect with MIT Medical. (I recommended that he do so.) Says it won't be helpful; no reason to do so" (emphasis in original). After two meetings with the coordinator, Nguyen reported to Cayley that the meetings were of "absolutely no use ... [the coordinator] seemed to think that because I was referred to her, that meant that I was disabled, and therefore had only disability accommodations to offer me."
On June 25, 2007, Cayley referred Nguyen to MIT's mental health and counselling service (MIT Mental Health) and informed Wernerfelt that this referral was Cayley's "response to [Nguyen's] expressed need for remedial study skills." On July 9, 2007, Nguyen met with Dr. Celene Barnes, a psychologist at MIT Mental Health. On meeting Barnes, Nguyen stated that he did not know why he "was referred here. My issues have nothing to do with [mental health]." During the intake meeting, Nguyen denied
suicidal ideation. Barnes "provided [a] brief overview of [information] on test anxiety and gave him handouts used in the test anxiety workshop [and] [o]ffered to work with him on this issue." Nguyen "declined, stating again that he did not want to seek[ ] services at [MIT Mental Health] due to the stigma associated with it."
On July 25, 2007, Nguyen had a second appointment with Barnes. She conducted a general intake, which irritated Nguyen because "he didn't know what other [mental health] issues had to do with his test taking problem." During this meeting, Nguyen disclosed to Barnes that he had had a long history of depression with two prior suicide attempts during college but denied any present suicidal ideation. Nguyen also disclosed that he had been in treatment prior to coming to MIT and that he had resumed treatment with a psychiatrist in the area. Although Nguyen had hoped that his test anxiety issue would be resolved in one appointment, he agreed to follow up with Barnes at the start of the school year.
On July 29, 2007, Nguyen told Cayley that he found MIT Mental Health to be "useless," that Barnes "proceeded to turn me into a mental patient, and I was forced to discuss things that I really didn't want to," and that he doubted that MIT Mental Health was the "correct agency to solve my problem." Further, Nguyen questioned why Wernerfelt had to be informed of the referral to Barnes because Nguyen was "hoping to keep the circle as small as possible, since I'm very ashamed and embarrassed about [my test-taking problems]."
On August 9, 2007, Nguyen reported to Barnes that he was receiving treatment from Dr. John J. Worthington, a psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), not MIT Mental Health. Barnes offered to consult about treatment planning, but Nguyen declined. Subsequently, Nguyen informed Barnes that he had "been able to make other arrangements for treatment, so there will be no need to search any further, but I really appreciate all of your effort thus far."
On September 6, 2007, Nguyen met with Randall, the assistant dean in the student support office.4 Before meeting with Randall, Nguyen had sent an electronic mail (e-mail) message to another
student support dean, inquiring whether the student support office could help him with his problem, which was that he had "difficulty with taking exams, to the extent that [he was] failing classes" and asked if the student support office offered "any kind of counseling service that teaches study skills." In their first meeting, Randall reported that Nguyen was "very committed to this not being seen as a ‘problem’ and [was] looking for a quick fix." Toward the end of the meeting, Nguyen acknowledged that he had a long history of mental health issues and depression and that he was seeing a psychiatrist, Dr. Worthington, off campus.
On September 24, 2007, Nguyen returned to see Randall. Nguyen described a "long history of depression dating back to high school," and treatment by "several ... therapists during college." He also "acknowledged two suicide attempts in the past and frequent suicidal thoughts." Nguyen, however, stated that he "did not identify a specific plan [to commit suicide] ... and [was] not imminently suicidal." Although perceiving that Nguyen was not an imminent threat, Randall "strongly encouraged" Nguyen to visit MIT Mental Health. But after his recent MIT Mental Health meeting with Barnes, Nguyen was resistant and stated that his current psychiatrist was already aware of his prior suicidal ideation and that Nguyen also had plans to see another therapist, Dr. Stephen Bishop, in Rhode Island.
By the end of the September 24 meeting, Nguyen gave Randall permission to contact Worthington, Bishop, and Barnes. Later that day, Randall left a voice message for Worthington. Subsequently, Nguyen revoked Randall's permission to contact Worthington and stated in an e-mail message that he would "like to keep the fact of my depression separate from my academic problems. I'd prefer that we not any further discuss the depression, that my academic problems can be framed in terms of a deficit in study skills instead. If you can offer any such aid, I'd be happy to further employ your services." On September 25, Randall acknowledged Nguyen's decision and replied that he "would still like to meet with you and think that I can be helpful." Randall also stated in the e-mail message that Nguyen was permitted "to schedule another [appointment]." Nguyen did not respond to Randall's e-mail message and did not have any further meetings or contact with Randall after September, 2007.
Worthington followed up with Randall on September 27, 2007. Worthington was unable to share any information or confirm that Nguyen was his patient, but said that he could listen to Randall's
concerns, especially regarding Nguyen's safety. Randall
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McHenry v. Asylum Entm't Del., LLC
...415, 413 P.3d 656 [examining "benefit" to the "party [to be] charged with a duty of care"]; Dzung Duy Nguyen v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Mass. 2018) 479 Mass. 436, 452, 96 N.E.3d 128 ["financial benefit to the defendant" is one "factor" to consider in deciding whether it had a......
-
Doull v. Foster
...WIC earlier."We review the denial of a motion to amend the complaint for abuse of discretion." Dzung Duy Nguyen v. Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., 479 Mass. 436, 461, 96 N.E.3d 128 (2018). Despite this standard, "leave should be granted unless there are good reasons for denying the motion." M......
-
Rahim v. Dist. Attorney for the Suffolk Dist.
...in that party's favor, the successful opposing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Dzung Duy Nguyen v. Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., 479 Mass. 436, 448, 96 N.E.3d 128 (2018). 1. Public records. Two statutes primarily govern public records requests. General Laws c. 66, § 10 (a......
-
John Doe v. Trs. of Bos. Coll.
...imposed on universities through their "voluntary assumption" of care, they have done so narrowly. See Nguyen v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., 479 Mass. 436, 96 N.E.3d 128, 140-41 (2018) (discussing the modern university-student relationship in Massachusetts tort law); Mullins, 449 N.E.2d at 336 (fi......
-
Trial Court Finds Harvard Satisfied Suicide Prevention Duty
...the few cases to apply the student suicide prevention duty first recognizedby the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Nguyen v. MIT, 479 Mass. 436 (2018), a state trial court recently found that Harvard University and two administrators fulfilled their legal obligations after learning t......
-
When Does a University Have a Duty to Protect Students from Campus Harms? The Fall of the Bystander Era and the Rise of a Special-Relationship Theory of Duty.
...hard-fought independence. (1.) Helfman v. Ne. Univ., 149 N.E.3d 758, 769 (Mass. 2020) (quoting Dzung Duy Nguyen v. Mass. Inst, of Tech., 96 N.E.3d 128, 140 (Mass. 2018)) (holding universities have limited duty to protect intoxicated (2.) See Nat'l Inst, on Alcohol Abuse & Alcoholism, Fa......
-
To Be a Good Lawyer, One Has to Be a Healthy Lawyer: Lawyer Well-being, Discrimination, and Discretionary Systems of Discipline
...of fa-tigue,” “Alternate periods of high and low productivity”) will not detect lawyers 218. Dzung Duy Nguyen v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., 96 N.E.3d 128, 144 (Mass. 2018) (discussing universities’ possible duties in loco parentis to prevent student suicide and finding that “[e]ven a student’s ......