Dunkle v. Food Service East
582 A.2d 1342 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A mental health professional owes no duty to warn or protect a third party from a patient's violent conduct unless the patient has communicated a specific and immediate threat of serious bodily injury against a readily identifiable victim.
Facts:
- Bruce Tindal was being treated for a schizophreniform disorder by psychiatrist Dr. Hylbert and counselor Keith Berfield.
- Dr. Hylbert prescribed the medication Navane but instructed Tindal in December 1983 to discontinue its regular use, after which Tindal's behavior became "nasty" and "violent."
- The medication was re-prescribed, but in December 1984, Dr. Hylbert discharged Tindal and instructed him to take Navane only as needed.
- Tindal was in a live-in relationship with Senie Eyer.
- At no point during his treatment did Tindal communicate to his mental health providers any specific threat or inclination to harm Senie Eyer.
- In March 1985, Tindal and Eyer went to a store known as 'the Cannery.'
- While in the men's restroom at the store, Tindal strangled Eyer under the delusion that she was a Russian agent.
- Senie Eyer died from her injuries one week after the attack.
Procedural Posture:
- Steve Dunkle, administrator of Senie Eyer's estate, filed a negligence action against the original defendants ('the Cannery') in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County.
- The Cannery joined Bruce Tindal's mental health providers (Dr. Hylbert, Keith Berfield, and The Pennsylvania State University) as additional defendants, claiming they were liable.
- The additional defendants filed motions for summary judgment, arguing they owed no legal duty to the decedent, Senie Eyer.
- The trial court (Court of Common Pleas) granted summary judgment in favor of the additional defendants, dismissing the complaint against them.
- The Cannery, as the original defendant and appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
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 professional have a legal duty to warn or protect a third party from a patient's violent acts when the patient has not made any specific threats against that particular third party?
Opinions:
Majority - Popovich, Judge.
No. A mental health professional does not have a legal duty to warn or protect a third party from a patient's violent acts where the patient has not made specific threats against a readily identifiable individual. The court analyzed the precedent set in Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, which established a duty to protect identifiable victims from specific threats, but declined to adopt it broadly in Pennsylvania. The court found that Tindal never communicated any intent to harm Eyer, and thus she was not a readily identifiable victim. The court rejected the argument that Eyer was identifiable simply because she lived with Tindal, citing Leedy v. Hartnett for the principle that frequent contact does not create a special duty, as liability cannot be based on mere statistical probability. Imposing a broader duty, the court reasoned, would undermine the psychotherapist-patient privilege and hinder effective treatment by breaking patient confidentiality.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the scope of a mental health professional's duty to third parties in Pennsylvania, adopting a very narrow interpretation of the 'duty to warn' doctrine. By requiring a specific threat against a readily identifiable victim, the court prioritizes the confidentiality of the therapeutic relationship over a generalized duty to protect the public. This ruling establishes a high evidentiary bar for plaintiffs in such negligence cases, effectively shielding therapists from liability unless they are aware of a direct threat to a specific person. The case signals that Pennsylvania courts are reluctant to expand third-party liability for medical professionals outside of very specific circumstances.
Unlock the full brief for Dunkle v. Food Service East