Rodriguez v. Lasting Hope Recovery Ctr. of Catholic Health Initiatives
| Decision Date | 05 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. S-19-1116.,S-19-1116. |
| Parties | Angela RODRIGUEZ and Adan Rodriguez, Special Administrators of the Estate of Melissa Rodriguez, appellants, v. LASTING HOPE RECOVERY CENTER OF CATHOLIC HEALTH INITIATIVES, formerly known as Lasting Hope Recovery Center of Alegent Creighton Health, et al., appellees. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
This is a tort action brought to recover damages for the wrongful death of Melissa Rodriguez, who was killed by her ex-boyfriend, Mikael Loyd. Loyd was a patient for 6 days at Lasting Hope Recovery Center (Lasting Hope), a mental health care facility in Omaha, Nebraska, where he was treated by Dr. Jeana Benton, a psychiatrist employed by the University of Nebraska Medical Center Physicians (UNMC Physicians). Hours after Lasting Hope had discharged Loyd pursuant to Benton's order, Loyd strangled Melissa to death.
As special administrators for Melissa's estate, her parents, Angela Rodriguez and Adan Rodriguez (Special Administrators), brought a wrongful death action against Lasting Hope and UNMC Physicians for failing to warn and protect Melissa from Loyd. The district court granted summary judgment to Lasting Hope and UNMC Physicians on the basis that they owed no legal duty to Melissa. We affirm.
On August 8, 2013, Loyd visited the Omaha Police Department (OPD) headquarters, stating that he wished to share information about his father's 1995 murder. He told OPD officers that he blamed his mother for the murder and that he sought OPD's help to have her killed in retaliation.
The OPD officers called Loyd's grandmother, who explained that Loyd was mentally ill and "not on his medications." Loyd's grandmother confirmed that in the past, she had also heard Loyd threaten to kill his mother. The OPD officers next called Loyd's mother, who lived in North Carolina, to warn her of Loyd's threats.
After a brief investigation, the OPD officers discovered an outstanding arrest warrant for Loyd, attributable to an alleged June 11, 2013, misdemeanor assault and battery of his girlfriend, Melissa. The OPD officers acknowledged that they could arrest Loyd pursuant to the warrant, but they expressed concern that if Loyd then made bond before he could obtain mental health treatment, he would again present a serious danger to the public. The OPD officers instead placed Loyd under emergency protective custody and transported him to Lasting Hope.1
At Lasting Hope, Benton was assigned as Loyd's treating psychiatrist. During an initial evaluation on August 9, 2013, Benton noted that Loyd "denies symptoms consistent with bipolar disorder
... but appears extremely paranoid, distractible and at times appears to be responding to internal stimuli." She determined that Loyd was "very paranoid, homicidal and delusional and [a] risk for harm to others were he to be outside the hospital environment at this time." Benton recommended 5 to 7 days’ "hospitalization for stabilization and safety."
Loyd remained at Lasting Hope from August 8 to 14, 2013. During this time, he called his mother and Melissa using Lasting Hope's landline telephone. Melissa twice visited Loyd at Lasting Hope. During her second visit, Melissa told Loyd that she no longer wished to be his girlfriend.
Based on statements that Benton had heard in which Loyd had specifically expressed a desire to kill his mother, Lasting Hope staff called Loyd's mother and warned her of his threats. But because Loyd had never expressed a similar threat against Melissa, she was not warned.
On August 12, 2013, Loyd dialed the 911 emergency dispatch service to turn himself in to police on his outstanding arrest warrant. OPD officers arrived at Lasting Hope that afternoon. Lasting Hope staff informed the OPD officers that Benton wished to continue to hold Loyd for further mental health evaluation. Apparently accepting Benton's determination that Loyd still needed mental health treatment at Lasting Hope, the OPD officers did not arrest Loyd at that time.
On August 14, 2013, Benton evaluated Loyd and determined that he was ready to be discharged. According to Benton, Loyd had been compliant with his medication for 6 days. Although still delusional about his father's murder, Loyd no longer expressed an intent to harm his mother. He reported to Benton that he "had a good conversation" with his mother over the telephone, and he committed to "not act to harm anyone." Benton concluded that Loyd was no longer a risk to himself or to others. After providing Loyd with a supply of medication and scheduling a followup appointment at Lasting Hope, Benton discharged Loyd at 1:40 p.m. Neither Benton nor Lasting Hope staff notified OPD or Melissa of Loyd's discharge.
After Loyd was discharged, he placed numerous calls to Melissa from his cell phone. Melissa was at home with her sister, who urged Melissa to ignore Loyd's calls. But eventually Melissa answered one. Loyd told her that he had been discharged from Lasting Hope. Melissa agreed to meet Loyd that evening at a park.
Melissa's body was discovered the next day, August 15, 2013. Investigators concluded that Loyd had strangled Melissa. Loyd had returned to Lasting Hope, and OPD officers arrested him there. Loyd was initially prosecuted for murdering Melissa, but in September 2013, he was found not competent to stand trial.
The present action was initiated by the Special Administrators, Melissa's parents, in the district court for Douglas County. According to the amended complaint, parties representing two groups had negligently caused Melissa's wrongful death.
The first group, collectively referred to as the "UNMC Defendants," consisted of UNMC Physicians; the Noll Company; and two employees of UNMC Physicians, "Jane Doe Physician #1" and "Jane Doe Nurse #1." The second group, collectively referred to as the "Lasting Hope Defendants," consisted of Catholic Health Initiatives, doing business as CHI Health; Alegent Health-Bergan Mercy Health System, doing business as Lasting Hope; and two employees of Lasting Hope, "John Doe #1" and "John Doe #2." We note that certain of these entities were grouped together pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, which allows an employer to be held vicariously liable for the negligence of an employee while acting within the scope of employment.2
The defendants filed motions to dismiss for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.3 After a hearing, the district court concluded that the issue raised by the motions to dismiss was whether the defendants owed Melissa a duty. Holding that the Special Administrators had failed to allege sufficient facts to show that the UNMC Defendants or the Lasting Hope Defendants owed Melissa any duty, the district court ordered the complaint dismissed.
We reviewed the Special Administrators’ first appeal in Rodriguez v. Catholic Health Initiatives ( Rodriguez I ) and reversed the decision of the district court and remanded the cause.4 The Special Administrators’ claim against the UNMC Defendants was sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss based on allegations, which we accepted as true, that Loyd had " ‘sufficiently communicated’ " to Benton that he intended to kill Melissa.5 And with respect to the Lasting Hope Defendants, the Special Administrators had "alleged sufficient facts ..., which we accept[ed] as true, to show that Loyd was in Lasting Hope's custody and that therefore, such facts g[a]ve rise to a duty."6
After our remand and some discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment.
A hearing on defendants’ motions was set for Monday, October 7, 2019. On Sunday, the day before the hearing, the Special Administrators served on the defendants six affidavits, 526 pages in all, in opposition to summary judgment. The defendants objected that these affidavits were untimely served, lacked proper foundation, and consisted of hearsay. After taking the matter under advisement, the district court ultimately sustained the defendants’ objections, writing in its order that "[t]he material objected to has been ignored by the [c]ourt in its determination herein."
The district court then granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, concluding that the undisputed evidence showed that none of the defendants owed any duty to Melissa. According to the district court, the UNMC Defendants owed no duty to warn Melissa because Loyd had never actually communicated to Benton that he intended to harm Melissa. And the Lasting Hope Defendants owed no duty to protect Melissa because by the time of her murder, Loyd had already been discharged from Lasting Hope pursuant to Benton's recommendation.
The Special Administrators filed a timely appeal.7
The Special Administrators assign, consolidated and restated, that the district court erred by (1) granting summary judgment to the UNMC Defendants and the Lasting Hope Defendants on the basis that they did not owe a duty to warn and protect Melissa from Loyd and (2) excluding six affidavits in opposition to the defendants’ motions for summary judgment.
An appellate court affirms a lower court's grant of summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted evidence show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from the facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.8 An appellate court reviews the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.9
The question whether a legal duty exists for actionable negligence is a question of law dependent on the facts in a particular situation.10 In reviewing questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation to reach conclusions independently of those reached by the trial court.11
An appellate court reviews the factual findings underpinning a trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v. MBC Constr. Co.
...2010) (defining terms "plastic surgery" and "reconstructive surgery" for purposes of § 48-120 ).6 Rodriguez v. Lasting Hope Recovery Ctr. , 308 Neb. 538, 955 N.W.2d 707 (2021).7 Hofferber v. Hastings Utilities , 282 Neb. 215, 803 N.W.2d 1 ...
- Gonzales v. Neb. Pediatric Practice, Inc.
-
Lewis v. MBC Constr. Co.
...(defining terms "plastic surgery" and "reconstructive surgery" for purposes of § 48-120). 6. Rodriguez v. Lasting Hope Recovery Ctr., 308 Neb. 538, 955 N.W.2d 707 (2021). 7. Hofferber v. Hastings Utilities, 282 Neb. 215, 803 N.W.2d 1 (2011)....
-
Evans v. Freedom Healthcare, LLC
...that may be drawn from the facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rodriguez v. Lasting Hope Recovery Ctr. , 308 Neb. 538, 955 N.W.2d 707 (2021). In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the par......