McNamara v. Honeyman
406 Mass. 43, 546 N.E. 2d 139 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (G.L. c. 258), a public employee is immune from personal liability for claims arising from both ordinary and gross negligence committed within the scope of their employment, as such conduct falls under the 'negligent or wrongful act or omission' for which the public employer assumes liability.
Facts:
- Karen McNamara, a twenty-year-old diagnosed schizophrenic, had a history of self-harm and multiple admissions to Northampton State Hospital.
- During her final admission in November 1980, she continued a pattern of erratic and self-destructive behavior, including cutting her neck and attempting to choke herself.
- Dr. David Honeyman, a psychiatrist employed by the University of Massachusetts Medical School and assigned to the hospital, was her treating physician.
- On multiple occasions, Dr. Honeyman reduced McNamara's observation level from constant one-on-one supervision to staff checks every fifteen minutes after she stated she did not intend to harm herself.
- On December 16, 1980, Dr. Honeyman again changed McNamara’s status from one-on-one observation to fifteen-minute checks, testifying he believed her condition had stabilized.
- On December 17, 1980, McNamara hanged herself in a hospital cubicle and later died from her injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs sued Dr. Honeyman and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the Superior Court.
- A jury returned a verdict finding Dr. Honeyman grossly negligent, the Commonwealth negligent, and both liable for civil rights violations, awarding $1.7 million in damages.
- The trial judge granted the defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on the gross negligence and civil rights claims, entering a final judgment of $100,000 against the Commonwealth solely on the negligence claim.
- Both the plaintiffs and the defendants appealed the trial judge's decisions to the Appeals Court.
- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court granted Dr. Honeyman's petition for direct appellate review before the Appeals Court heard 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 the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act grant a public employee, such as a state-employed psychiatrist, personal immunity from a civil claim of gross negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Nolan, J.
Yes. The Massachusetts Tort Claims Act immunizes a public employee from claims of gross negligence. The Act's language making a public employer liable for a 'negligent or wrongful act or omission' of its employee is broad enough to encompass gross negligence, as the Act only explicitly carves out intentional torts from this immunity. The court found that Dr. Honeyman was a public employee because the University of Massachusetts is a state agency, and it exercised sufficient control over the details of his work, such as his hours and patient assignments. While the evidence did not support a finding of gross negligence, it was sufficient for ordinary negligence, for which the Commonwealth (the public employer) is liable. Furthermore, a patient institutionalized for being a danger to herself cannot be found comparatively negligent for the very self-harm the institution has a duty to prevent.
Dissenting - O'Connor, J.
The issue of immunity should not have been reached because the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of any negligence. The plaintiffs' expert witness, Dr. Nelson, did not testify that Dr. Honeyman's medical decisions deviated from the accepted standard of care. Instead, the expert's testimony focused exclusively on Dr. Honeyman's deficient record-keeping and documentation. A failure to properly document medical decisions is not the same as providing negligent treatment, and there was no evidence to show that faulty record-keeping caused Karen McNamara's death. Therefore, without sufficient evidence that the treatment itself was negligent, there is no basis for liability against either Dr. Honeyman or the Commonwealth.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of public employee immunity under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, extending it to cover gross negligence in addition to ordinary negligence. By explicitly stating that only intentional torts are excluded from this immunity, the court provides a bright-line rule that protects government employees from personal liability for even egregious errors in judgment, shifting that liability to the public employer. The case also reinforces a crucial principle in medical malpractice for psychiatric care: the defense of comparative negligence is unavailable when a healthcare provider's duty includes preventing the very self-harm that occurred. This strengthens protections for vulnerable patients in institutional settings.
