Hi Everyone,
This is the follow-up to the message that I sent when an Appellate Court ruled that a provider does have a duty of care to the public when a client is discharged.
The Court of Appeals reversed. The lower court ruling was narrow (only in cases where provider has “control” over the client) so I wasn’t too concerned about it, but this is even better.
A SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FACILITY OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A RESIDENT SHORTLY AFTER THE RESIDENT WAS DISMISSED FROM THE TREATMENT PROGRAM.
The Appellate Division had ruled that a mental health and substance abuse facility could be held liable for the actions of a client that had been discharged for violating rules. However the Court of Appeals has now reversed the Appellate Division and has determined that a mental health and substance abuse treatment facility, JCAP, owed no duty of care to plaintiff who was assaulted by Velentzas, who had just been dismissed from the treatment program for violation of the program’s rules. The court said : “JCAP had some control or authority over its residents while they remained participants of the program. But, JCAP residents could leave the facility and terminate their participation in the program against medical advice. Although voluntary departure from the program would trigger adverse legal consequences — namely, dismissal from the TASC program and potential prosecution in criminal court for the charges against them — residents could leave at any time. In short, facilities like JCAP cannot force a participant to remain on the premises. These facilities are not prisons; JCAP’s control over Velentzas was, ‘in fact entirely dependent upon [his] willingness to comply with and carry out’ its directives … . In the absence of the authority to prevent a participant from leaving, it follows that, when a participant is discharged from JCAP for violating facility rules, or withdraws from the program, he or she is no longer under the facility’s control.” (Oddo v. Queens Vil. Comm. for Mental Health for Jamaica Community Adolescent Program, Inc., 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 01256, CtApp 2-16-17)
This decision should come as a major relief to providers as it overrules the lower court decision which created major liability concerns for providers as it made them responsible for the behavior of unruly clients who had been discharged from a program for violating rules. – Toni