.

The Quarterly Dose

Managing Risks in ER Psychiatric and Behavioral Health Treatment

The Quarterly Dose - May 2024

May 1, 2024

by Adam J. Fulginiti

As mental and behavioral health care grows more universal, and the delivery of healthcare services becomes more diverse, providers must be prepared to account for shifting landscapes regarding the standard of care. Given new trends emerging within this field, there are best practices providers can utilize to manage and mitigate risk in the emergency room setting.

Vetting and Training Personnel
Within the context of behavioral health emergency room treatment, vetting and training of personnel constitutes a key factor in litigation which often manifests in corporate negligence claims. Institutional providers may face exposure not only for the actions of their staff related to the patient, but also the operation of the facility itself. This includes factors such as the hiring and retaining of personnel, the adequacy of policies and procedures, adequacy of facilities and equipment, and notably, training and oversight of staff.

While all licensed providers in the ER should ideally be proficient in handling behavioral health patients, treatment of these patients should be assigned to providers with relevant experience, given the unique challenges these patients present. Providers should be proficient in modalities germane to behavioral health, which include screening tools regarding depression, violent ideations, trauma, and substance abuse. They should also be competent in the performance of safety checks regarding risks for ligature, suffocation, and/or items that can be thrown, broken, or otherwise used to harm the patient or others. Proficiency should be demonstrated by physicians, nurses and other mid-level providers, as well as other “ancillary staff.” Behavioral health settings often include a safety observer and security personnel who can also be utilized in crisis cases involving agitation or risk/history of violence/self harm. Social workers and other crisis specialists may also be employed. Regardless of the role of the personnel involved, providers interacting with behavioral health patients in the ER should be proficient in observation, communication, and engagement.

In addition to ensuring proper vetting and training of ER staff, documentation of these processes should be created and maintained in credentialing and/or personnel files. Examples of relevant materials include initial training/orientation, acknowledgment of receipt related to policies and procedures, and ongoing education and training. 

Telemedicine in the Behavioral Health ER
Logistically, telemedicine can and often is utilized to supplement staffing and maintain continuity of services. For larger institutions, daytime and evening shifts may employ in-person coverage but for overnight hours, psychiatric telemedicine services may be utilized. Smaller institutions, which typically have less access to in-person staff, may utilize psychiatric telemedicine with greater frequency. In either scenario, psychiatric telemedicine enhances the ability of healthcare institutions to service and treat a broader array of patients, irrespective of the staff physically present.

While the benefits of psychiatric telemedicine may be obvious, they come at a cost, as the risks and exposure common to all telemedicine practice exist and, in fact, may be enhanced, within the setting of ER behavioral health treatment. This primarily derives from the lack of in-person contact, the quintessential element of telemedicine. Generally speaking, the inability of a provider to be physically present with a patient can impact the therapeutic dynamic. This “disconnect” between in-person care and telemedicine can be pronounced in the context of behavioral health treatment, where factors such as body language, eye contact, and other manifestations may be more difficult to appreciate. Lack of in-person contact may also impact the provider’s rapport with the patient, potentially limiting the patient’s trust. This may affect the patient’s candor with the provider, which may in turn diminish the provider’s ability to generate a properly-informed diagnosis and treatment plan.

In light of these challenges, institutions should ensure telemedicine providers involved with behavioral health patients are proficient with this type of practice. Tactics such as maintaining patient engagement, conducting objective screening, and obtaining as detailed a history as possible are key to mitigating potential adverse outcomes. The institution should also maintain up-to-date telemedicine-related technology to minimize challenges associated with behavioral health telemedicine in the ER. In the event the telemedicine provider determines in-person care or admission is necessary, institutions must be prepared to handle such a recommendation, be it through on-site treatment or the facilitation of transfer to another facility.

Subcontracted Services
Larger healthcare institutions, especially those in an academic setting, maintain their own psychiatric medicine service, which is flush with attending physicians, fellows, residents, and other mid-level providers. Consequently, the need to subcontract outside providers to assist with behavioral health treatment in the ER is typically unnecessary. However, smaller healthcare institutions may not have access to in-house psychiatric services, or, may have limited access throughout a 24-hour time period. Smaller institutions may therefore need to subcontract with an outside psychiatric provider in order to furnish or supplement in-house psychiatric services.

Additionally, the need for security services in the ER has been on the rise. In a 2022 American College of Emergency Physicians survey, 85% of those surveyed expressed that the rate of violence experienced in emergency departments has increased over the past five years. In this regard, 55% said they had been physically assaulted, almost all by patients, with a third of those resulting in injuries. Notwithstanding the societal stigma imposed upon psychiatric patients and those struggling with addiction, these same physicians reported that psychiatric patients, along with those seeking drugs or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, comprised over 80% of the assaults experienced. Given the increasing risk that ER providers face, institutions may opt to retain and/ or increase their security staff and technology, often through subcontracting with a third party.

The importance of delineating parameters of the subcontractor relationship, particularly responsibility for certain tasks, is key. To the extent such companies are enlisted to provide services, institutions should understand what services these entities are obliged to perform and what they are not. This typically can be addressed through service agreements or similar contracts, which provide guidance regarding the apportionment of responsibilities. Within these contracts, indemnity provisions are critical to identifying exposure in the event of an adverse outcome and potential litigation.

For example, when contracting with an outside provider to provide in-house psychiatry services, the parties must have a clear understanding of their respective roles in the hiring, orientation and training, credentialing, supervision, and control over the provider. The contract should clearly layout each party’s responsibilities. Such contracts typically require outside vendors to hire the provider and to ensure they are qualified for the proposed role in the ER. At the same time, the contract may significantly limit the vendor’s role regarding supervision/control over the care furnished by the provider. The hospital typically has responsibility for the orientation and credentialing of the provider, as well as supervision of their work pursuant to hospital/ER policies and procedures. The contract should address other issues such as scheduling, disciplinary action, removal or termination of the provider, and, of course, indemnity and contribution.

For security staff, many of the same issues exist. There must be a clear delineation of responsibility for vetting and hiring the security staff, and responsibility for ensuring they are qualified and receive the proper and necessary training. The ability to discipline and/or terminate security staff should also be clearly stated. As for behavioral health, depending on the ratio of behavioral health patients in the ER, a healthcare provider should consider providing security staff with advanced training on how to manage patients with behavioral health issues, including those actively in crisis. Either way, the ER should have a sufficient number of properly trained security staff present at all hours to effectively manage a typical shift’s behavioral health caseload.

Crisis Management and Facilities
Behavioral health patients come with their own unique challenges, especially those who present to the ER in active crisis. Proper screening and assessment of patients in crisis is necessary to not only protect the patient and provide them with the proper treatment, but also to protect others. In addition to vetting and training personnel, the use of telemedicine, and the decision to subcontract certain functions, the ER must have comprehensive policies and procedures regarding provision of care to behavioral health patients. For patients in crisis, policies and procedures should include where the crisis patient should be located in the ER, the protocol for monitoring/surveillance, and the protocol for security (often dependent on the presence, or lack thereof, of a history of violence or indication of potential violence).

If possible, a specific number of treatment rooms should be set up for patients in crisis, with all potentially harmful objects removed from the room. These rooms should be located in an area of the ER where security can be effectively provided and which do not allow easy access to exit points. Consideration should be given to security cameras to assist with monitoring, as surveillance footage may be pertinent in the event of an incident and potential, future litigation. If there are crisis intervention specialists in the ER, these specialists must be able to appropriately monitor and access patients in order to facilitate safety and treatment needs. If specific rooms cannot be designated for crisis patients, then the ER should have a plan for what to do when a crisis patient arrives in the building. This includes accounting for where patients are screened and assessed, where they are located, how they are monitored, how to make their environment safe and keep them safe, and how to protect the safety of others. 

Reprinted with permission from the April 23, 2024, issue of the The Legal Intelligencer © 2024 ALM Media Properties, LLC. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved. 


 

The Quarterly Dose – April 2024, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2024 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

Firm Highlights

News

Marshall Dennehey’s John J. Hare Brings Home Attorney of the Year Honors; Firm Named Litigation Department of the Year in Two Categories

Marshall Dennehey took home top honors in three categories at the The Legal Intelligencer’s 2026 Pennsylvania Legal Awards, held June 11 in Philadelphia. The first place awards include: Attorney of the Year: John J. Hare, Chair of the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group and Executive Committee member, together with Charles “Chip” Becker of Kline & Specter Litigation Department of the Year, Appellate – Third Win in a Row! Litigation Department of the Year, Product Liability/Mass Torts “There is no one more deserving of Attorney of the Year honors than John. This award is a testament to his exceptional skill, dedication, and leadership—qualities that truly exemplify the very best of our firm,” said G. Mark Thompson, Marshall Dennehey’s President & CEO. “These honors also reflect the strength and depth of our product liability, mass torts, and appellate practices across Pennsylvania and beyond, underscoring our ongoing commitment to delivering outstanding results for our clients.” Attorney of the Year – John J. Hare, Marshall Dennehey, together with Charles “Chip” Becker, Kline & Specter Over the past year, John and Charles were opposing counsel in many of the highest-profile civil appeals in Pennsylvania. John is renowned as a preeminent appellate lawyer on the defense side, and Chip on the plaintiff's side. They have opposed each other repeatedly, exhibiting peerless professionalism and exceptional civility, while zealously litigating under the unremitting pressure of high-profile litigation and record-setting verdicts totaling more than $3.5 billion. They have also collaborated, outside of litigation, on many commissions, committees, and projects of importance to the Pennsylvania judiciary and legal community. Litigation Department of the Year – Appellate Law, Winner (previous winner, 2025 and 2024) 2025 was another standout year for the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post‑Trial Practice Group, led by John J. Hare, which was retained to challenge many of Pennsylvania’s “nuclear” verdicts—awards exceeding $10 million. Notably, the department persuaded the Pennsylvania Superior Court to reverse a Philadelphia judgment of $1.09 billion, the largest judgment ever overturned by a Pennsylvania appellate court. The group’s 11 full‑time Pennsylvania‑based appellate lawyers are at the center of Pennsylvania’s most high-profile matters, bringing more than 150 years of combined appellate experience. They routinely handle post‑trial and appellate matters and are frequently engaged to participate in and monitor trials in high‑exposure cases to ensure that critical legal issues are properly raised and preserved for appeal. Litigation Department of the Year – Product Liability/Mass Torts, Winner This marks the first win for the firm’s Pennsylvania Product Liability and Mass Torts practices, which operate within our Casualty Department, managed by Matthew Schorr and Jeff Rapattoni. For almost five decades, Fortune 500 product manufacturers/distributors and their insurers have turned to these groups to defend their litigation. Led by Bradley D. Remick and Vlada Tasich, our Product Liability group’s success can be attributed to its commitment to keeping abreast of ever-changing legal theories, judicial viewpoints, and evolving technology impacting the product liability landscape. Our attorneys have successfully handled thousands of product liability matters in all jurisdictions across the state. Likewise, our mass tort litigation practice – divided into Asbestos & Mass Tort, and Environmental & Toxic Tort Litigation –  has defended manufacturers, distributors, contractors, and premises owners in thousands of personal injury and other claims. Led by Kevin E. Hexstall and Patrick T. Reilly, most attorneys in these groups have more than 20 years of experience, and our seasoned trial team has tried hundreds of cases to verdict, consistently achieving strong results through both trials and settlements. In addition to these awards, Marshall Dennehey was a Litigation Department of the Year finalist for Professional Liability.

Thought Leadership

Appeals Court Reverses Trial Court Order Striking Complaint as Sanction for Violating Discovery Order

All Dry USA v. Savell, 2026 WL 816093 (Fla. 1st DCA 2026) The First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying All Dry USA’s complaint as a sanction for violating a discovery order. The appellate court found that All Dry USA’s failure to comply with the trial court’s case management order did not give the trial court the authority to strike All Dry USA’s pleadings. All Dry USA provided water mitigation, mold remediation, and a restorative tarp at the property owned by the Savells. The property had been damaged by Hurricane Sally. All Dry USA provided invoices for the three services it performed in the amount of $90,130.61. The Savells refused to pay the invoices, stating that while they had retained All Dry USA, there was no agreement reached regarding the cost of the services. All Dry USA proceeded to file a lawsuit against the Savells, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The Savells answered the lawsuit and served discovery upon All Dry USA. All Dry USA failed to respond to the discovery requests and the Savells moved for an order compelling discovery. The trial court issued an order compelling All Dry USA to respond to Savells discovery requests and comply with all outstanding discovery deadlines per the case management order. On the day its responses were due, All Dry USA filed a motion to extend the deadline to comply with the court’s order. Before the motion was ruled upon, the Savells filed a motion to have All Dry USA’s complaint stricken for violating the trial court’s order compelling All Dry USA’s responses. The trial court granted the motion to strike, and then granted the Savell’s request for entry of default final judgment, based upon there no longer being an operative complaint. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, ruling that an order striking pleadings is justified if it is found that a party has violated numerous discovery orders, or has shown a “deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court's authority.” Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla. 1983). The appellate court stated that a trial court’s authority to strike pleadings is not unbridled and that the situation before the court did not justify the striking of All Dry USA’s pleadings. In reaching its decision, the First District focused on the fact that the trial court only addressed the potential prejudice to Savell by All Dry USA failing to respond to discovery and seeking an extension of the deadline. The appellate court stated that prejudice is not the only factor to be considered and that the trial court needed to address if All Dry USA’s behavior in failing to comply with the discovery order was willful and deliberate.  The First District also stated that nothing in rule 1.200 or 1.380 grants a trial court the authority to strike a pleading because certain case management deadlines are not met. The appellate court held that the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure allow trial courts to bring the parties in, order them to comply with the case management discovery deadlines, and then strike pleadings if the subsequent discovery orders are disobeyed. This ruling shows the importance of understanding the authority that is binding on the trial court a party is appearing in front of. The First District’s view on a trial court’s ability to strike pleadings is in contrast with other appellate court’s throughout Florida.

Thought Leadership

Perlmutter Provides Predictability for Punitive Damages Claims in Florida

In a much anticipated decision, the Florida Supreme Court provided clarity for the standards of proof for punitive damages claims in Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Company, SC2024-0058 (Fla. June 11, 2026). Litigants and trial judges must be mindful of the standards laid out by the Court. And, defense practitioners must be prepared to alter their strategies to defend against such claims. Perlmutter came to the Court from the Fourth District, based on conflict jurisdiction with decisions from the Second and Fifth District and on certification of a question of great public importance as to the standard of proof for punitive damages claims at the pleading stage. Fed. Ins. Co. v. Perlmutter, 376 So. 3d 24, 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). In the underlying case, the Fourth District made two conclusions. First, it held that a “trial court must consider the evidentiary showing by all parties at the hearing on the motion to amend, that is, evidence ‘in the record’ and evidence ‘proffered by the claimant.’”  376 So. 3d at 33. Second, the Fourth held that it “interpreted section 768.72(1) and (2) to require the trial court to make a preliminary determination of whether a reasonable jury, viewing the totality of proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the movant, could find by clear and convincing evidence that punitive damages are warranted.  Id. at 34 (underscoring in the original). In making these conclusions, the court cautioned trial courts that the “preliminary determination” analysis did not entitle the trial court to decide whether the evidence is clear and convincing and noted that the trial court should not weigh evidence and should not determine witness credibility. Id. The Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and answered the certified question in the negative. It quashed the decision below and remanded the case for application of the following standards: The trial court should consider only the evidence identified or proffered by the claimant; it should not entertain an evidentiary counter-submission from the opponent. The trial court should consider whether a reasonable person could conclude based on the claimant’s evidence, that the defendant committed “intentional misconduct” or “gross negligence” as defined in section 768.72(2) or section 768.72(3). The trial court must review the request for punitive damages in the context of the underlying claims. The trial court should not apply the clear and convincing standard of proof in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence at the pleading stage. The trial court does not act as a fact-finder; the trial court must not weigh the claimant’s evidence—it cannot decide the truth of the matter. The trial court must consider the record evidence and the proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, but the allegations in the proposed amended complaint are not themselves evidence. Perlmutter, SC2024-0058 at 13-15 (emphasis added). In explaining these standards, the Court interpreted the text of the statute and compared it to a related statute which governs punitive damages in the nursing home context. The nursing home statute expressly calls for evidentiary submissions by “the parties” and expressly tells the trial court to determine whether there is a reasonable basis to believe the claimant could satisfy the “clear and convincing evidence” standard at trial. Id. at 17-18 (comparing the text of section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes, with section 400.0237, Florida Statutes). Without that express language in section 768.72, the statute could not be applied in the same manner. With these standards specially delineated for the trial courts, the Court is “confident that its interpretation of section 768.72(1) will not frustrate the effectiveness of the statute in accomplishing the Legislature’s textually evident purposes.” Id.  at 22 (cleaned up). This remains to be seen. While Perlmutter provides predictability and clarity for trial courts when reviewing the evidentiary submissions in support of a punitive damages claim, the decision will not likely impact the numbers of punitive damages motions filed. Rather, these new parameters will change the way claims are defended, reminiscent of a time when rulings on punitive damages were only subject to certiorari review and appellate courts were limited in reviewing procedural errors. This decision will likely deflate the level-playing field that Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(G) addressed by allowing appeals of orders granting and denying punitive damages amendments. Further, Perlmutter may have impliedly created a call to action for the Legislature to amend section 768.72(1) in the same manner it amended section 400.0237 to allow the courts to analyze “admissible evidence submitted by the parties” and determine at a hearing whether there is a reasonable basis to believe the claimant at trial would be able to demonstrate by “clear and convincing evidence” that the recovery of punitive damages is warranted. Until then, defendants must adjust their strategies. To adapt to these new standards, defense practitioners will need to tailor their strategy for defending punitive damages claims since they can no longer submit a counter-proffer or urge a court to apply the clear and convincing standard at the pleading phase. Instead, defendants will need to attack the deficiencies in the claimant’s pleadings and proffer. If the trial court fails to serve as a gatekeeper, and does not apply the above standards, then defendants can pursue an interlocutory appeal under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(G). If a nonfinal appeal is taken, then defendants should move to stay any intrusive financial discovery while the appellate court analyzes the issues on appeal. Finally, defendants should utilize Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 to serve as a screening device to allow the trial court to analyze all evidence and prevent nonmeritorious punitive damages claims from proceeding to a jury.

Thought Leadership

Court Reaffirms That Actual Cash Value Includes Labor and Overhead, Not Just Materials

Greenaker v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Case No. 2D2024-1964, (Fla. 2nd DCA May 8, 2026). The plaintiffs filed a breach of contract suit against Universal for refusal to pay for all of plaintiffs’ damages from a storm in November 2020. Universal filed a motion in limine to prevent the plaintiffs from introducing evidence concerning both actual cash value and replacement cost value of the loss. They argued that the plaintiffs did not complete repairs or incur any expenses in repairing the damaged property, thus being limited to actual cash value as their measure of damage and the plaintiffs’ submitted estimate of damages contained labor costs necessary for repair and, therefore, not an actual cash value estimate. Universal further asked for a directed verdict at the hearing because the plaintiffs would have no evidence to support the claim for damages. The trial court agreed and granted Universal’s motion, entering a final judgment in Universal’s favor.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing and reconsideration due to the court improperly converting Universal’s motion in limine to a motion for final summary judgment. The court denied plaintiffs’ motion and the plaintiffs appealed. The Second District Court of Appeal agreed with the plaintiffs and determined that the trial court improperly entered a final judgment based on a pretrial ruling in limine, advising there was recognized procedures, including summary judgment, judgment on the pleadings, and default judgment that could have been exercised. Further, the court continued that the improper procedure was not the only reason for the judgment to be reversed. They noted the insurance policy did not provide a definition of actual cash value nor how to calculate it, and the parties disputed the definition and calculation of such.  Universal argued that actual cash value is defined as the value of the property that suffered the direct physical loss less depreciation and deductible, i.e. costs of physical materials that were damaged.  The plaintiffs argued that actual cash value includes the amount of repair costs in addition to the value of the property that suffered direct physical loss because it is calculated as the replacement cost minus depreciation.  The court agreed with the plaintiffs, noting that Universal’s definition was not supported by the insurance contract, the statute governing replacement value insurance contracts, nor decisional authority.  The court noted that Universal “cherry-picked” the phrase “direct physical loss” from the perils insured against provision and applied it to the loss settlement provision, which doesn’t state “direct physical loss,” but instead states “insured loss.”  Further, the court conveyed that application of “direct physical loss” would be used on both actual cash value and replacement cost value, as they are both present in the loss settlement provision, which would mean insureds never got payments beyond costs of physically damaged material, which is contradictory to the replacement cost value definition.  The court advised that the Florida Supreme Court had approved the court’s interpretation of actual cash value as including costs other than damaged physical property, including overhead and profit, noting that these costs can be included in actual cash value to which a portion, like all other costs, could be depreciated. The court noted the difference between actual cash value and replacement cost value is not between types of costs, i.e. materials vs. labor, but between the valuation of the costs with the distinction of being a depreciated vs. undepreciated value. The court refused to exclude intangible costs such as labor, profit and overhead from actual cash value, finding these costs inclusions were consistent with statutory and contractual language as well as Florida Supreme Court precedent. The court reversed the judgment and remanded the case back to the trial court.

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict.