Defense Digest

Motion For Summary Judgment Upheld Based Upon The Mental Health Procedures Act Immunity For Health Care Providers Absent Gross Negligence

In Walsh v. Borczon, M.D. and Saint Vincent Hospital, 2005 Pa. Super 256; 2005 Pa. Super LEXIS 2228, the Pennsylvania Superior Court determined the scope of the Mental Health Procedures Act (MHPA) as it applied to the plaintiff's appeal from the trial court granting summary judgment for the defendants, Dr. Borczon and Saint Vincent Hospital.

The plaintiff, who had a long history of mental illness, learned that she was pregnant when her physician was out of town. When she called the hospital to inquire whether she should stop taking her medication, the physician on call advised cessation of medications until her physician returned. The plaintiff failed to attend her follow-up appointment and had an abortion. Thereafter, she resumed taking her medication. As her condition improved, she claimed that she suffered mental trauma due to her decision to have an abortion. She initiated a lawsuit against her physician and the hospital that advised her to stop taking her medication, alleging negligence regarding the abrupt cessation of her medication. On appeal, she also argued that the MHPA did not apply to this case because the negligence was related to voluntary outpatient treatment.

The relevant section of the MHPA on which the defendants relied states:

50 P.S. section 7114(a).

There were three issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred in holding that the defendants had a form of limited immunity as set forth in the MHPA; (2) whether the trial court erred in applying the MHPA when the plaintiff set forth facts and expert reports demonstrating that the physician's acts were voluntary outpatient treatment and were not covered by the immunity of the MHPA; and (3) whether the trial court erred in finding that there was no evidence for the jury to decide gross negligence.

As to the applicability of the MHPA to the plaintiff's case, the Superior Court held that she did not point the trial court to any place in the record for which it could find facts sufficient to argue the inference that the MHPA was inapplicable. She had raised the issue for the first time in her statement of appeal. As such, she was precluded from raising this issue on appeal as it had been waived. It is important to note that the court did not rule on the applicability of the MHPA to her case.

Finding the first two issues waived, the court then addressed the plaintiff's third issue of whether she had presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find that either the defendant physician or the defendant hospital committed gross negligence. The plaintiff had alleged that it was gross negligence for the abrupt removal of her medication without providing increased support and monitoring; failure to respond to her telephone calls and requests for help during the time in which her mental health condition deteriorated; failure to schedule an appointment during the time when her mental health condition deteriorated; and failure to arrange for another physician or psychiatrist as coverage for her physician, who was unavailable. The court agreed with the trial court that none of these allegations had risen to the level of gross negligence but were, rather, examples of "ordinary carelessness, inadvertence, laxity, and indifference." Thus, Section 7114 of the MHPA (immunity from civil and criminal liability) applied, and the trial court did not mistakenly grant the defendants' motions for summary judgment.

*Fred is a partner in the Philadelphia, PA office. He can be reached directly at (215) 575-2770, or by e-mail at froller@mdwcg.com.