Albright v. Abington Memorial Hospital
548 Pa. 268, 696 A.2d 1159, 1997 Pa. LEXIS 1178 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Pennsylvania's Mental Health Procedures Act, gross negligence is conduct that is flagrant, grossly deviates from the ordinary standard of care, and is substantially more than ordinary carelessness. A court may grant summary judgment and dismiss a claim if, as a matter of law, the alleged conduct does not rise to this high standard, even if it could constitute ordinary negligence.
Facts:
- Elizabeth Jean Albright, who had a history of bipolar disorder and prior involuntary commitments, was ordered by a court into a 90-day involuntary outpatient treatment program at Abington Memorial Hospital starting September 28, 1988.
- During her treatment, Mrs. Albright informed her psychiatrist, Dr. Buck, that she was not taking her prescribed medication because it was too expensive.
- Mrs. Albright failed to attend her scheduled therapy appointment on December 8, 1988.
- On December 21, 1988, the 84th day of the 90-day program, her husband, John Albright, called the Hospital to report that his wife was not taking her medication and was 'losing touch with reality.'
- In subsequent calls with Hospital staff, Mr. Albright described his wife's behavior as becoming manic, walking at night, chain-smoking, letting dinner burn, and causing cigarette burns on new furniture.
- Hospital staff member Joseph Windish informed Mr. Albright that there was insufficient time left in the 90-day order to pursue an involuntary transfer to inpatient status and that the described behavior did not meet the 'clear and present danger' standard for an emergency commitment.
- Hospital staff attempted to reschedule an appointment with Mrs. Albright, but she refused, stating she would call back after Christmas.
- On the morning of December 23, 1988, Mrs. Albright died in a house fire that was determined to have most probably been caused by careless smoking.
Procedural Posture:
- John W. Albright filed a wrongful death and survival action against Abington Memorial Hospital in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas (trial court).
- The Hospital asserted qualified immunity under the Mental Health Procedures Act as an affirmative defense.
- The Hospital filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted the Hospital's motion for summary judgment, finding that its conduct did not constitute gross negligence as a matter of law.
- Albright (as Appellant) appealed the trial court's decision to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (intermediate appellate court).
- A unanimous panel of the Superior Court affirmed the trial court's order.
- Albright (as Appellant) then appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a mental health facility's conduct constitute gross negligence under the Mental Health Procedures Act, thereby precluding summary judgment, when its staff, after being informed of a patient's deteriorating mental state and non-compliance with treatment, exercises its professional judgment and declines to pursue immediate involuntary commitment, and the patient subsequently dies in an accidental fire?
Opinions:
Majority - Cappy, J.
No, the hospital's conduct did not rise to the level of gross negligence as a matter of law. The court formally adopts the definition of gross negligence as conduct that is 'flagrant, grossly deviating from the ordinary standard of care' and represents 'substantially more than ordinary carelessness, inadvertence, laxity, or indifference.' While the question of negligence is typically for a jury, a court may grant summary judgment where the plaintiff's evidence, viewed in the most favorable light, cannot meet this high standard. Here, the Hospital's staff solicited information about Mrs. Albright's condition, exercised professional judgment regarding the statutory requirements for commitment, and concluded her behavior did not constitute a clear and present danger. This conduct, while potentially poor judgment, was not a flagrant deviation from the standard of care, and allowing such a case to proceed to trial would gut the Act's qualified immunity provision, which is intended to protect mental health professionals making difficult decisions in an 'unscientific and inexact field.'
Dissenting - Nigro, J.
Yes, a reasonable jury could have found the Hospital's conduct to be grossly negligent, so the issue should not have been decided as a matter of law. The determination of whether conduct is 'flagrant' should be left to a jury unless the case is 'entirely free from doubt.' Given that the Hospital was aware of Mrs. Albright's deteriorating manic state, her refusal to take medication, her missed appointment, and her careless chain-smoking, a jury could reasonably conclude that the Hospital's failure to take more decisive action was a flagrant deviation from the standard of care. By granting summary judgment, the trial court and the majority usurped the role of the jury in resolving a disputed factual question.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal standard for 'gross negligence' under Pennsylvania's Mental Health Procedures Act by formally adopting the definition from the lower court's decision in Bloom. By affirming summary judgment, the court empowers trial judges to act as gatekeepers, dismissing cases where a plaintiff's allegations amount to ordinary negligence or poor judgment rather than the 'flagrant' and 'grossly deviating' conduct required to overcome statutory immunity. This holding strengthens the protective shield for mental health providers, making it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring treatment-related claims to a jury and reinforcing the legislative intent to insulate professionals from liability for difficult judgment calls.
