Mental Health

Professional Negligence Law Reporter

You must be a Professional Negligence Law Reporter subscriber to access this content.

If you are a member of AAJ's Professional Negligence Section or a subscriber, log in below. Not yet a Section member? Join today!

Join the Professional Negligence Section

Hospital Physicians not Liable to Family of Man Killed by Psychiatric Patient After His Release

September/October 2019

Stanziano v. Cooley, 2019 WL 2896037 (Ky. Ct. App. July 5, 2019).

A Kentucky appellate court held that a hospital and its physicians were not liable for the death of a man killed by a former psychiatric patient who committed the crime within two months of his release from the hospital. Clinton Inabnit had a long history of mental illness and was hospitalized involuntarily on multiple occasions. After being hospitalized at Eastern State Hospital, he expressed violent thoughts but never made a specific threat of harm to any of his mental health care providers. Approximately six weeks after Inabnit’s hospital discharge, he shot and killed Mark Stanziano as he was entering his law office, which was across the street from Inabnit’s apartment.

Stanziano’s wife filed suit against Eastern State and several physicians, alleging negligent discharge and failure to warn. The court granted the defendants summary judgment.

Affirming, the court found that under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §202A.400, a mental health professional has a duty to warn the public or specific individuals of possible danger from a patient where he or she communicates an actual threat of physical violence against an identifiable or reasonably identifiable victim. Here, the court found, there is no evidence that Inabnit had communicated any kind of threat against Stanziano. Citing case law, the court added that simply being a threat does not amount to a communication of threatened violence.

The court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the defendants’ alleged deviation from the standard of care precludes the application of §202A.400 and its immunity provisions. The defendants owed a duty of reasonable care to Inabnit, not Stanziano, the court said, noting that Stanziano had no relationship with the defendants from which a duty of care could arise.