Megan J. Nelson

The Third District Court of Appeal reversed an order granting summary judgment in favor of an addiction treatment facility, holding the facility did not have a duty to prevent the decedent’s suicide after discharge, but it did have a duty to attempt to assist the patient in securing more appropriate services in a setting more responsive to the patient’s needs.

Anthony Burley had been involuntarily committed to The Village South, Inc., an addiction facility, following his third overdose and initiation of a Marchman Act order. Upon his admission, Mr. Burly tested negative for controlled substances. Ten days later, he tested positive for cocaine, a violation of the facility’s rules. Thirteen days later, he was formally discharged from the facility to a homeless shelter with a two-week supply of Suboxone and a list of doctors to contact for medication maintenance. 

Forty-eight days later, Mr. Burley overdosed and died of acute combined drug toxicity. His estate filed a lawsuit for medical negligence, alleging that The Village South negligently provided substance abuse care and treatment to Mr. Burley and failed to provide him with an adequate discharge from the facility.

The Third District Court of Appeal determined that the defendant had a duty arising from Florida Statute 397.6751, which states that when an involuntary patient’s behavior necessitates discharge from a facility, the facility’s provider must discharge the individual and attempt to assist the individual in securing more appropriate services in a setting more responsive to that individual’s needs. 

In addition, the District Court determined that the defendant had a duty arising from the general facts of the case as it created a “foreseeable zone of risk” when it provided Mr. Burley with Suboxone. The court also found that the defendant did not schedule a follow-up medical appointment and referred him to a homeless shelter rather than a rehabilitation center. 

The court made it clear that the defendant did not have a duty to prevent the suicide from occurring, nor did it have a duty to follow up with Mr. Burley after his discharge to ensure he went to a doctor or sought further substance abuse treatments. 

Although this matter was related to an involuntary substance abuse patient, the same ruling could apply to a voluntary substance abuse patient or even a suicidal patient being discharged from the hospital. This ruling means that providers should no longer recommend a follow-up timeframe but, rather, schedule the follow-up appointment, ensure the patient is aware of the appointment having been made, and ensure the patient has a way to get to the appointment, all before the patient is discharged.
 

---

_{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}