Emerich v. Philadelphia Center for Human Development, Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
720 A.2d 1032 (1998)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A mental health professional has a duty to warn a third party when a patient communicates a specific and immediate threat of serious bodily injury against a specifically identified or readily identifiable third party, and the professional determines, or should determine, that the patient presents a serious danger of violence to that party.

Facts:

Teresa Hausler and Gad Joseph were in a romantic relationship and both received mental health treatment from the Philadelphia Center for Human Development (PCHD).
Joseph had a history of physically and verbally abusing Hausler, as well as a history of other violent propensities and homicidal ideations.
After Hausler ended the relationship and moved away, Joseph indicated during therapy sessions that he wanted to harm her.
On the morning of June 27, 1991, Joseph telephoned his counselor, Anthony Scuderi, and stated he was going to kill Hausler.
During an emergency therapy session that morning, Joseph repeated his threat to kill Hausler if he found her at their former apartment that day, but then assured Scuderi he would not harm her and was allowed to leave.
Shortly after, Hausler called Scuderi, informing him she was on her way to the apartment to retrieve her clothing and inquiring about Joseph's whereabouts.
Scuderi instructed Hausler not to go to the apartment and to return to her new residence in Reading.
Hausler disregarded the instruction, went to the apartment, and was fatally shot by Joseph.

Procedural Posture:

The administrator of Teresa Hausler's estate filed wrongful death and survival actions against the Philadelphia Center for Human Development, its parent companies, and its employees in a state trial court.
The trial court granted the defendants' (Appellees') motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The plaintiff (Appellant) appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted allocatur to review the case.

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 duty to warn a third party when a patient communicates a specific and immediate threat of serious bodily injury against that specifically identified third party?

Opinions:

Majority - Cappy, Justice

Yes, a mental health professional has a duty to warn an intended victim in limited circumstances. Adopting the principles of Tarasoff v. Regents, the court held that the special relationship between a mental health professional and a patient creates an exception to the general rule that there is no duty to control the conduct of a third person. This duty is supported by Pennsylvania precedent regarding liability for negligent discharge of mental patients (Goryeb) and a physician's duty to protect third parties from contagious diseases (DiMarco). The duty is narrowly circumscribed, arising only when a patient communicates a specific, immediate threat of serious bodily injury against a readily identifiable victim. However, in this case, the counselor's instruction to the victim not to go to the apartment was a reasonable warning under the circumstances and discharged his duty as a matter of law.

Concurring - Flaherty, Chief Justice

Joins the majority opinion but expresses concern that this decision is another extension of liability in an already litigious society. While justified here, he cautions against any further expansion of this area of law.

Concurring - Zappala, Justice

Concurs only in the result, disagreeing with the creation of a new duty to warn. He argues the court did not need to decide the issue to resolve the case, making the majority's analysis obiter dictum. He further contends that prior case law involved duties related to patient treatment decisions, not a direct duty to a third party, and that creating this duty represents a significant departure from the common law tradition that liability does not attach for a failure to render aid.

Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Nigro, Justice

Agrees with the majority's decision to recognize a duty to warn a third party. However, he dissents from the conclusion that judgment on the pleadings was proper, arguing that the adequacy of the warning given is a question of fact for a jury, not a question of law. He asserts that the majority improperly drew inferences against the appellant and that the complaint, viewed in the light most favorable to the appellant, stated a valid cause of action that should proceed.

Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Newman, Justice

Agrees with the majority's decision to recognize a duty to warn. She dissents from the conclusion that the counselor discharged his duty as a matter of law, arguing that the vague instruction not to visit the apartment was insufficient. She criticizes the majority's standard that a warning should be the 'least expansive based upon the circumstances,' arguing that once the duty to warn is triggered, the paramount concern becomes providing the threatened person with adequate information to take appropriate action, not protecting the patient's confidentiality.

Analysis:

This case formally establishes the 'Tarasoff duty' to warn in Pennsylvania, aligning the Commonwealth with the majority of jurisdictions. By recognizing the therapist-patient relationship as a 'special relationship' creating an exception to the common law rule of no duty, the court created a new, though limited, cause of action for third-party victims. The decision's significance lies in balancing the public interest in safety against the therapeutic need for patient confidentiality. Future litigation will likely focus on interpreting the limits of this duty, such as what constitutes a 'specific and immediate threat' and what actions are 'reasonable' to discharge the duty in various factual scenarios.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Emerich v. Philadelphia Center for Human Development, Inc. (1998)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature