Gregory v. Kilbride
150 N.C. App. 601, 565 S.E.2d 685, 2002 N.C. App. LEXIS 685 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In North Carolina, a psychiatrist's duty to third parties is to exercise reasonable care in controlling a dangerous patient to prevent harm, but this duty does not extend to a specific legal requirement to warn potential victims of the patient's violent propensities.
Facts:
- John Mark Gregory (Mark) made numerous threats to kill his wife, Kathryn Gregory, and to kill himself over a 36-hour period.
- Mark's father, Lloyd Davis Gregory, successfully petitioned a magistrate for an order of involuntary commitment for Mark.
- Mark was taken to Cabarrus County Memorial Hospital, where an emergency room physician and a psychiatric social worker both found that he met the criteria for involuntary commitment.
- Mark was then transferred to Broughton Hospital for a statutorily-required second opinion from psychiatrist Dr. Kevin Kilbride.
- Dr. Kilbride diagnosed Mark with an adjustment disorder but concluded he did not meet the legal criteria for involuntary commitment and released him.
- Immediately upon arriving home, Mark armed himself with a shotgun, a pistol, and a rifle.
- Mark drove to the house where Kathryn was staying, broke down the front door, and searched for her.
- After finding Kathryn, Mark shot her seven times with two different weapons, killing her, and then shot and killed himself.
Procedural Posture:
- Lloyd Davis Gregory, on behalf of the estates of Mark and Kathryn Gregory, sued Dr. Kevin Kilbride in trial court for wrongful death.
- The trial court denied Dr. Kilbride's initial motion to dismiss on the grounds of qualified immunity.
- The trial court later denied Dr. Kilbride's motion for summary judgment.
- At the close of all evidence at trial, the judge granted a partial directed verdict in favor of Dr. Kilbride, ruling he had no separate legal duty to warn Kathryn Gregory.
- The remaining claims of negligence were submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Kilbride.
- The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial.
- The plaintiff, Lloyd Davis Gregory, appealed the judgment to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
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 psychiatrist in North Carolina have a legal duty to warn a specific, identifiable third party of a patient's threats of violence?
Opinions:
Majority - Bryant, J.
No. A psychiatrist in North Carolina does not have a legal duty to warn a specific, identifiable third party of a patient's threats of violence. While prior cases like Pangburn and Davis establish a duty for a psychiatrist to exercise reasonable care to control a patient to prevent harm to others, this precedent does not create a separate duty to warn. The court explicitly rejected the landmark California case Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, which established such a duty to warn in that state. Therefore, the trial court was correct to grant a directed verdict in favor of Dr. Kilbride on the claim that he breached a duty to warn Kathryn.
Dissenting - Greene, J.
This issue should not be reached because Dr. Kilbride was entitled to statutory immunity, and the case should have been dismissed on summary judgment. The dissent argues that N.C.G.S. § 122C-210.1 provides immunity to physicians for their professional decisions regarding patients so long as they follow accepted professional judgment. Because Dr. Kilbride's decision to release Mark was a professional judgment, supported by expert testimony that it was not unreasonable, he was presumptively shielded from liability. The dissent contends the trial court erred in denying Dr. Kilbride's summary judgment motion, and this error should have been corrected, rendering the plaintiff's appeal moot.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies North Carolina's rejection of the 'Tarasoff duty,' which requires mental health professionals to warn identifiable potential victims of a patient's threats. The court clearly distinguishes the recognized duty to control a patient from a non-existent duty to warn third parties, thereby limiting a potential avenue of liability for psychiatrists in the state. This holding reinforces that the focus of a negligence claim against a psychiatrist for harm caused by a patient will be on the professional judgment exercised in the treatment and release decision (the duty of control), not on a failure to communicate with the eventual victim.
Unlock the full brief for Gregory v. Kilbride