.

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

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

Thought Leadership

The Enforceability of Online Arbitration Agreements Remains Unresolved in Pennsylvania, But the Pennsylvania Superior Court has Provided Substantive Guidance on the Issue

Key Points: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court confirms that an order compelling arbitration is not immediately appealable as collateral orders. The outcome of Chilutti II has generally left the substantive enforceability issues with browsewrap agreements unresolved in Pennsylvania. Until this issue is resolved by the Pennsylvania courts, companies operating in the Commonwealth should strive to ensure that their registration websites and/or application screens conspicuously present arbitration agreements in manners which ensure their users and consumers assent to the terms of the agreements by following the standards set forth in Chilutti I. Browsewrap agreements have been defined as agreements “‘in which a website offers terms that are disclosed only through a hyperlink and the user supposedly manifests assent to those terms simply by continuing to use the website,’ and typically do not require an electronic signature.” See, Cobb v. Tesla, Inc., 2026 WL 458470, at *1 n. 2 (Pa. Super. Feb. 18, 2026) (citation omitted). They are largely regarded as the “if you keep using this, you agree to everything buried in this link” terms embedded into almost every online agreement consumers and users sign before proceeding with purchases of goods and/or services. While consumers are generally aware of them, many almost never click on the link, nor read them in their entirety. This leaves many consumers and users ignorant of the terms and impact of such agreements. However, one’s ignorance of the otherwise neatly-tucked-away terms rarely renders them unenforceable. The issue of the enforceability of browsewrap agreements has been up for debate for some time in many jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania. Indeed, Pennsylvania had a brief grip on this issue for a period in time. Specifically, in 2023, an en banc Superior Court set forth heightened standards for companies to meet in order to secure assent and enforce browsewrap arbitration agreements. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 300 A.3d 430 (Pa.Super. 2023) (en banc) (“Chilutti I”) Chilutti I involved a husband and wife who sued Uber and its subsidiaries after the wife, a wheelchair bound passenger using Uber’s rideshare service, fell, struck her head, and lost consciousness due to her uber driver failing to provide a seatbelt and making an aggressive turn during the trip. The Chilutti’s filed a negligence lawsuit against Uber and its subsidiaries. In response, the defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing that “the couple’s conduct on the company’s website and application — when they registered for the ridesharing service — signified that they agreed to be bound by the mandatory arbitration provision found in the hyperlinked terms and conditions.” The trial court granted the defendants’ petition and stayed the proceedings pending the results of arbitration, and the Chilutti’s appealed. On appeal, the Superior Court addressed two issues. First, it addressed the issue of whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. A divided Superior Court determined that it did, with its basis for the holding being that the order from which the Chilutti’s appealed was a collateral order. Next, the Superior Court set out to address the merits of the Chilutti’s substantive claim. The Superior Court concluded that the parties lacked a valid agreement to arbitrate. Its rationale was that Uber’s website and application did not provide reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to the Chiluttis. In reaching this decision, the en banc Superior Court held that browsewrap arbitration agreements are enforceable in Pennsylvania only if the registration website and application screens explicitly inform consumers that they are waiving the right to a jury trial, the registration process cannot be completed until the consumer is fully informed of this waiver, and, when the agreement is available via hyperlink, the waiver appears at the top of the first page of the terms in bold, capitalized text. Since the ruling, Pennsylvania courts have applied Chilutti I to determine if browsewrap agreements are enforceable.  For instance, the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas invoked Chilutti I to reject an agreement that lacked an express jury-trial waiver on the assent screen.  See Miller v. Festival Fun Parks, LLC, 92 WDA 2025 (C.P. Alleg. Cnty. Mar. 24, 2025). Similarly, the Superior Court has held that notice which failed to explicitly state the consumer was waiving a jury-trial right did not “me[e]t the strict burden set forth by our en banc Court in Chilutti I.” Pierce v. FloatMe Corp., 348 A.3d 1077, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2025). While the issue of enforceability of browsewrap agreements appeared to have been resolved by Chilutti I, Pennsylvania courts’ grip on this issue has been slackened by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s January 21, 2026, opinion in Chilutti II. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 349 A.3d 826 (Pa. 2026) (“Chilutti II”). Therein, the Supreme Court did not address the merits of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim, but rather the issue of whether the Superior Court had appellate jurisdiction to immediately review the orders staying litigation pending arbitration. The Court ultimately vacated the en banc opinion on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the Superior Court did not have appellate jurisdiction because the trial court’s order from which the Chiluttis appealed did not qualify as a collateral order and, thus, the Superior Court erred in holding to the contrary and lacked jurisdiction to entertain the merits” of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim. As such, Chilutti II has rendered Chilutti I nonbinding, and the issue of enforceability of online arbitration agreements remains unresolved. However, in light of the fact the Supreme Court did not address or comment on the merits of the Chiluttis’ appeal, Chilutti I is still meaningful. Specifically, it provides guidance as to the standards a company should strive to meet to ensure they have obtained users’ assent so that they are able to enforce online arbitration agreements. Additionally, it may serve as persuasive authority in judges’ evaluations of petitions and/or motions to compel browsewrap arbitration agreements until this particular issue is properly put before our appellate courts. Keanna works in our Pittsburgh, PA office. She can be reached at (412) 803-1174 or KASeabrooks@MDWCG.com.

News

Veteran Trial Attorney Joseph M. Toddy Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Casualty Department in Philadelphia

Thought Leadership

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

Thought Leadership

Vendor Cyber Attack Compromises PII of More Than 3 Million Hunting and Fishing License Holders in Texas

The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) announced earlier this month that one of its vendors which handles the sale of state hunting and fishing licenses was the victim of a cybersecurity attack. The threat actor appears to have exfiltrated personal driver’s license information, passport numbers, email addresses, phone numbers and addresses of over 3 million hunting and fishing license holders.  The State Parks Department advised that the attack did not compromise social security numbers, dates of birth or financial information. Texas Cyber Command, the state’s new cybersecurity authority formed to protect critical infrastructure and coordinate threat responses across state and local government, reportedly assisted in detecting and containing the attack. TPWD has already set up free credit monitoring for those impacted through Kroll.  According to press reports, no specific group has yet been identified as the perpetrator of the theft. TPWD also advised that business has not been interrupted and license sales were continuing. This incident once again demonstrates that cybersecurity is only as strong as the weakest link in the supply chain. Businesses must prioritize security across their own environments and those of their vendors and contractors as well.

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. 

Result

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

Congratulations to our 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Rising Stars: Elizabeth Ferguson, A.C. Nash, Taylor Naughton, Sophia Philor, Amara Rodriguez

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Florida Rising Stars