Schrempf v. State

• Citation: 66 N.Y.2d 289,496 N.Y.S.2d 973,487 N.E.2d 883
• Parties: , 487 N.E.2d 883 Flora A. SCHREMPF, as Executrix of Albert R. Schrempf, Deceased, Respondent, v. STATE of New York, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 19 November 1985
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

Page 973

496 N.Y.S.2d 973

66 N.Y.2d 289, 487 N.E.2d 883

Flora A. SCHREMPF, as Executrix of Albert R. Schrempf, Deceased, Respondent, v. STATE of New York, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Argued Oct. 9, 1985.

Decided Nov. 19, 1985.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Peter H. Schiff, Robert Hermann and Vernon Stuart, Albany, of counsel), for appellant.

Wilfred E. Hoffmann, Syracuse, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

WACHTLER, Chief Judge.

Claimant's husband was stabbed and killed by Joseph Evans, a mental patient who had been released from a State institution and was still receiving outpatient care from that facility. In a suit for wrongful death the Court of Claims found the State liable for negligently failing to have the assailant committed as an inpatient sometime prior to the assault. The Appellate Division affirmed, with one justice dissenting.

On this appeal, the State of New York urges that the claim be dismissed for two reasons. First, it argues that the State cannot be held liable for failure to prevent a criminal act unless it had a special relationship with the victim, which concededly was not proven in this case. Second, it is urged that the decisions of the State psychiatrist fell within the area of professional medical judgment and thus cannot serve as a basis for a negligence or malpractice award. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the State's second contention and reverse the Appellate Division's order.

In December 1981 claimant's husband, Albert Schrempf, was employed at Consolidated Industries of Greater Syracuse, Inc., a private nonprofit organization which provides vocational rehabilitation for outpatients from mental institutions. On December 9, 1981 he was stabbed to death at his place of employment by Joseph Evans, a 27-year-old outpatient from Hutchings Psychiatric Institute, a State mental facility.

Evans had been admitted for treatment at Hutchings on six occasions beginning in May 1979. The admissions usually followed violent altercations with members of his family and involved some property damage and attempted assaults, but not the infliction of personal injury. On these occasions he claimed that he was prompted by inner voices commanding him to act. He was generally diagnosed as a manic depressive hypomanic type or, more rarely, as a paranoid schizophrenic, which were described at trial as degrees of the same general condition. Three of the admissions involved commitments as an inpatient; three were on outpatient status. Several of the admissions were voluntary. Evans generally resented the involuntary commitments and sometimes responded with threats against staff members or resorted to violent resistance. On one occasion, he broke the jaw of another patient.

Evans' condition was generally improved or stabilized by psychotherapy and medication which could be provided on an outpatient basis. However, he was a difficult outpatient because he had an erratic attendance record and did not regularly take prescribed medications. He was sensitive to, and had an adverse reaction to, certain drugs and sometimes stated that he would not take his medication because it was against his religion.

Evans' last involuntary commitment as an inpatient ended in January of 1981. In the summer of that year, he broke windows in his mother's house and subsequently pleaded guilty to criminal mischief. He was sentenced to probation and his probation officer suggested that he seek psychiatric treatment.

On September 28, 1981 he returned to Hutchings and was voluntarily admitted. He was examined on that occasion by the psychiatrist who had first admitted him in 1979 and who had also treated him on most of his subsequent admissions. She found that he was experiencing "persecutory delusions" that he was possessed and might be changing into a homosexual. However, she noted that he was calm and remained cooperative. Based on the examination and her knowledge of his psychiatric history, she determined that he was again suffering from manic depression and that at that time he did not pose a risk to himself or others. She placed him on outpatient status but assigned him to a special clinic for recalcitrant outpatients so that his use of the medication could be monitored.

In October Evans worked at a part-time job, without apparent incident. In November he was referred by his probation officer to Consolidated Industries for vocational rehabilitation. He participated in that program on a trial basis for approximately 10 days over the next three or four weeks.

Throughout this period his participation in the outpatient program diminished. In October he said he did not want to come any more because he had a job. He rarely met with his psychiatrist in October and did not see her after November 1. He did not regularly go to the clinic for his medication in October, and in November only appeared on two dates, November 9 and November 30.

His psychiatrist encouraged him to continue in the outpatient program and to take his medication. When he complained that the drugs made him drowsy at work, she reduced the dosage and directed him to take the medicine at night. On November 17 she informed his probation officer that he was not taking his medication. She also monitored his behavior through the probation officer and others and found no evidence that his condition was deteriorating. On the contrary, she was informed that he appeared to be polite and cooperative by all who observed him at the clinic, the probation office and Consolidated Industries. Indeed he was being considered for permanent membership at Consolidated at the time of the assault on December 9, 1981.

At the trial, the claimant urged that the State had been negligent in the care and treatment of Evans by releasing him and permitting him to remain on outpatient status in 1981, particularly after his psychiatrist had reason to believe he was not taking his medication as prescribed. The Court of Claims held that the decision to release Evans in January 1981 involved a medical judgment for which the State could not be held liable. However, the court concluded that the State was negligent in admitting Evans to outpatient care, instead of confining him as an inpatient in September 1981. The court also held that the State psychiatrist should have done "something more" when it became evident that the patient was not taking his prescribed medication.

The Appellate Division affirmed, without opinion. One justice dissented on the ground that the State, if negligent, should not be held liable for the assault on a third party under the facts of this case. The claim should have been dismissed, 107 A.D.2d 1042, 486 N.Y.S.2d 1010.

As noted, the State's first contention on this appeal is that the claim should have been dismissed because the claimant failed to establish a special relationship between the State and the injured party. The claimant concedes that such a relationship was not established, but argues that it is not necessary where it is alleged that the State's negligent care and treatment of a mental patient has resulted in injury to a third party.

The State's argument is based on the basic principle that the State cannot be held liable for negligent failure to perform governmental activities, such as providing police and fire protection or law enforcement generally, unless a special relationship had been established between the State and the person injured (De Long v. County of Erie, 60 N.Y.2d 296, 469 N.Y.S.2d 611, 457 N.E.2d 717; O'Connor v. City of New York, 58 N.Y.2d 184, 460 N.Y.S.2d 485, 447 N.E.2d 33; Weiner v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 55 N.Y.2d 175, 448 N.Y.S.2d 141, 433 N.E.2d 124; Garrett v. Town of Greece, 55 N.Y.2d 774, 447 N.Y.S.2d 246, 431 N.E.2d 971; Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860). It is urged that this principle is applicable here because the essence of the complaint is the State's negligent failure to prevent Evans from criminally assaulting claimant's husband. The rule, however, has no application in cases where the State engages in a proprietary function (Miller v. State of New York, 62 N.Y.2d 506, 478 N.Y.S.2d 829, 467 N.E.2d 493; Bass v. City of New York, 38 A.D.2d 407, 330 N.Y.S.2d 569, affd. no opn. 32 N.Y.2d 894, 346 N.Y.S.2d 814, 300 N.E.2d 154), such as providing medical and psychiatric care (see, Riss v. City of New York, supra, 22 N.Y.2d at pp. 581-582, 293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860). In those cases, the State is held to the same duty of care as private individuals and institutions engaging in the same activity (Miller v. State of New York, supra, 32 N.Y.2d at p. 511, 478 N.Y.S.2d 814, 300 N.E.2d 154; Bernardine v. City of New York, 294 N.Y. 361, 62 N.E.2d 604; Court of Claims Act § 8; see also, Koenigsmark v. State of New York, 55 N.Y.2d 928, 449 N.Y.S.2d 191, 434 N.E.2d 260; Cohen v. State of New York, 51 A.D.2d 494, 382 N.Y.S.2d 128, affd. 41 N.Y.2d 1086, 396 N.Y.S.2d 363, 364 N.E.2d 1134; St. George v. State of New York, 283 App.Div. 245, 127 N.Y.S.2d 147, affd. no opn. 308 N.Y. 681, 124 N.E.2d 320; Daley v. State of New York, 273 App.Div. 552, 78 N.Y.S.2d 584, affd. no opn. 298 N.Y. 880, 84 N.E.2d 801).

This latter standard has been consistently applied in cases where it is alleged that negligent care of a mental patient by the State or one of its subdivisions has produced injury to the patient or others (Koenigsmark v. State of New York, supra, [attempted suicide by patient after escape]; Centeno v. City of New York, 40 N.Y.2d 932, 389 N.Y.S.2d 837, 358 N.E.2d 520, affg. on Per Curiam 48 A.D.2d 812, 369 N.Y.S.2d 710 [suicide by patient after release]; Cameron v. State of New York, 37 A.D.2d 46, 322 N.Y.S.2d 562, affd. no opn. 30 N.Y.2d 596, 331 N.Y.S.2d 30, 282 N.E.2d 118 [assault on others after release]; Hirsch v. State of New York, 8 N.Y.2d 125, 202 N.Y.S.2d 296, 168 N.E.2d 372 [suicide by patient in hospital]; Scolavino v. State of New York, ...