Mental health professionals have a duty to warn about threats made by mentally ill patients even if they don't specify an individual, the state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
In a 3-2 majority opinion, the high court upheld a 2018 Superior Court decision that said Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic and others should have warned people who shared Hampshire Hall in Shadyside with Terrence Andrews that he had told his doctors that he wanted to kill his neighbors.
In 2008, Andrews murdered Lisa Maas with a pair of scissors when she answered her door in the building.
Her family sued the various entities who treated Andrews, saying they had an obligation to report his statements to the residents of the building.
“The trial court and the Superior Court thus properly determined the duty to warn applies not only when a specific threat is made against a single readily identifiable individual, but also when the potential targets are readily identifiable because they are members of a specific and identified group — in this case, ‘neighbors’ residing in the patient’s apartment building,” wrote Justice Kevin Dougherty for the majority.
Attorney Jon Perry, who represents the Maas family, hailed the opinion.
“I think it’s a very important decision for victims of mental health, such as my client,” he said. “I also think it’s a very important decision for people who suffer from mental health disorders.”
But lawyers for the defendants said the ruling devalues patient privacy.
“The vague requirement to warn really drives patients away from the care that they need and does not protect the safety of the public,” said attorney John Conti.
Mr. Conti had asked the high court for summary judgment in favor of his client, saying that state standards for a patient issuing a threat require notification of identifiable people. He said Andrews’ use of the word “neighbor” could have applied to anyone in the area.
Two dissenting justices agreed, saying requiring doctors to issue warnings for vague threats would impair their ability to build a rapport with patients.
The majority said otherwise.
“In these circumstances, the potential targets are not a large amorphous group of the public in general, but a smaller, finite, and relatively homogenous group united by a common circumstance,” Justice Dougherty wrote. “Surely, Lisa Maas was a member of such a group relative to Andrews, and described in the complaint as ‘all Hampshire Hall tenants, particularly those who resided on the same floor as Mr. Andrews.’”
The suit will now head to a jury.
Andrews is serving life in prison for the killing.
The Associated Press contributed.
First Published: July 21, 2020, 10:21 p.m.