2007 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-14-2007

DeJesus v. US Dept Veterans

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 05-4952

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"DeJesus v. US Dept Veterans" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1387.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1387
PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

Nos. 05-4952 and 05-5112

 

CAMILLE DeJESUS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS

ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF

ALEJANDRO DeJESUS, JR., DECEASED,

AND THE ESTATE OF 

FELICIA LYNNE DeJESUS, DECEASED;

CHERYL FAULK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS

ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF

MICHAEL BRANDON FAULK, DECEASED,

AND THE ESTATE OF

AARON ASHANTI FAULK, DECEASED

 Appellants, No. 05-5112

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

 Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff

PHILADELPHIA VETERANS MULTI-SERVICE

& EDUCATION CENTER, INC.;
2

LANDING ZONE II TRANSITIONAL RESIDENCE,

 Third Party Defendant

 United States of America

 Department of Veterans Affairs,

 Appellant, No. 05-4952

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 02-cv-00253)

District Judge: Honorable Paul S. Diamond

 

Argued December 13, 2006

Before: FISHER, CHAGARES and

GREENBERG, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: March 14, 2007)

William G. Cole (Argued)

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Division, Appellate Staff

601 D Street, N.W., Room 7409

Washington, DC 20530
3

Joan K. Garner

Joel M. Sweet

Office of U.S. Attorney

615 Chestnut Street, Room 1250

Philadelphia, PA 19106

Attorneys for Appellant/Cross Appellee

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Gerald A. McHugh, Jr. (Argued)

Regina M. Foley

Raynes, McCarty, Binder, Ross & Mundy

1845 Walnut Street, Suite 2000

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Attorneys for Appellees/Cross Appellants

Camille DeJesus, etc., and Cheryl Faulk, etc.

 

OPINION OF THE COURT

 

FISHER, Circuit Judge.

This case comes to us on appeal from the District Court’s

judgment in favor of Camille DeJesus (“Camille”) and Cheryl

Faulk (“Faulk”), plaintiffs and appellees in this case. Following

a bench trial, the District Court determined that the U.S.

Department of Veterans Affairs (“the VA”) was liable on a

theory of gross negligence for the shooting deaths of Camille’s

and Faulk’s children by Camille’s husband, Alejandro DeJesus,

Sr. (“DeJesus”), just eighteen hours after he was released from
Ages are at the time of the shooting. 1

4

a residential housing facility located on the VA’s grounds. On

appeal, the VA argues that it had no statutory or common-law

duty to protect the third-party children from DeJesus. Camille

and Faulk cross-appeal, claiming the District Court erred in

granting summary judgment to the VA on their failure-to-warn

claims. For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm the

judgment of the District Court.

I.

The tragic factual background to this case centers around

DeJesus, an honorably discharged ex-Navy enlisted man.

DeJesus was married to Camille, with whom he had three

children, Alex, Jr. (age 22), Candida (age 19), and Felicia (age

6). DeJesus had a history of domestic violence that culminated 1

in 1997 when Camille obtained a Temporary Ex Parte Protection

From Abuse Order requiring DeJesus to stay away from his son

Alex, Jr. for one year, following an incident in which he

allegedly struck Alex, Jr. repeatedly. Following the incident,

DeJesus was arrested and placed in jail. While in jail, he

attempted to hang himself by his shoelaces. After he was

released, DeJesus had no home to which to return and began

living on the street, occasionally visiting homeless shelters.

In September 1997, DeJesus voluntarily entered the VA

Domiciliary Program as an unemployed, homeless veteran with

substance abuse problems. The Domiciliary Program is an

inpatient program designed to help veterans with the process of

moving from homelessness and unemployment to being active
Lability refers to emotional extremes – smiling at one 2

minute followed by an immediate shift to sobbing.

5

members of the work force. Most patients in the Domiciliary

Program spend approximately 90-120 days in the program and

then attempt to transition back into the community. It is

considered the least restrictive means of inpatient treatment at

the VA.

At the time he entered the Domiciliary Program, DeJesus

was initially evaluated by Dr. Edward Moon, a clinical

psychologist working at the VA. Dr. Moon’s evaluation found

that DeJesus had a history of domestic violence, and, while

DeJesus had denied depression, he admitted sadness and

bordered on lability when speaking of his estranged family. In 2

addition, DeJesus indicated to Dr. Moon that while he was not

currently suffering from any homicidal or suicidal thoughts, he

previously had thoughts about hurting others and previously

attempted suicide. Dr. Moon’s report also suggested that

unemployment and homelessness were “triggers” for DeJesus’s

destructive outbursts. During his time at the VA Domiciliary

Program, DeJesus reported to a case manager that he was

concerned because he had killed a man when in Vietnam and

felt nothing while doing so.

Based on this information, Dr. Moon believed that

DeJesus had intermittent explosive disorder. According to trial

testimony, “[i]ntermittent explosive disorder is a disorder which

involves some discrete incidents of either destruction or

violence, those incidents are disproportionate to the stimulus,

and those incidents do not occur or are not better explained by
6

another diagnosis, such as antisocial personality disorder . . . .”

Individuals suffering from intermittent explosive disorder are

generally not violent between episodes, only occasionally

exhibiting violence or impulsiveness at a low level. Following

violent episodes, those with the disorder often exhibit signs of

calm and remorse. Persons with intermittent explosive disorder

repeatedly react to the same stimuli and display the same

response in each violent episode.

Following this preliminary evaluation by Dr. Moon,

DeJesus saw a VA psychiatrist, Dr. Saul Glasner, who

confirmed Dr. Moon’s initial diagnosis of intermittent explosive

disorder. Dr. Glasner prescribed twice-daily doses of 200 mg of

Tegretol, an anti-convulsive medication which has been

successfully used to control intermittent explosive disorder. A

second VA psychiatrist, Dr. Tirso Vinueza, found that DeJesus

was suffering from mild depression and would be seen on an “as

needed basis.” Because Dr. Vinueza was not informed that

DeJesus was on Tegretol and did not read DeJesus’s chart, he

was unaware of Dr. Glasner’s diagnosis of intermittent

explosive disorder. No medication was prescribed for the mild

depression. There is no indication in the record that DeJesus

ever saw another psychiatrist during his stay at the Domiciliary

Program.

After his psychiatric evaluation, DeJesus was assigned a

“team” that would head up his treatment at the Domiciliary

Program, including psychotherapy and substance abuse

counseling. Although she was not DeJesus’s original case

manager (also called his primary therapist), Denise Outzs-
Outzs-Cleveland has a Registered Nursing degree, but 3

does not have a license to practice as she has twice failed the

licensing exam. Outzs-Cleveland does not have a license to

practice therapy either, as the VA does not require it.

7

Cleveland came to take over that position. During his time at 3

the Domiciliary Program, DeJesus attended group therapy

sessions headed by Outzs-Cleveland and underwent therapy at

one-on-one sessions. At no time during her management of

DeJesus’s case did Outzs-Cleveland familiarize herself with

DeJesus’s medical history or become aware that he had been

diagnosed with intermittent explosive disorder. In addition,

despite the fact that Outzs-Cleveland was treating DeJesus for

substance abuse problems, she was never aware of what, if any,

medications he was on.

After DeJesus completed approximately four-and-a-half

months in the Domiciliary Program, Outzs-Cleveland

recommended him for placement in Landing Zone II

Transitional Residence (“LZ-II”). LZ-II is a program of the

Philadelphia Veteran’s Multi-Service and Education Center,

which serves as a transitional program for veterans who may

live and work at LZ-II for up to two years. LZ-II is a privately

run, non-profit organization that is funded by the VA Homeless

Grant and Per Diem Program. It is located on the grounds of the

VA Medical Center at Coatesville in a building owned by the

VA. As part of its grant to LZ-II, the VA provides all medical

and psychiatric services to LZ-II residents, including aroundthe-clock emergency medical and psychiatric care. The VA also

provides full-time police and fire services. LZ-II staff members
8

regularly consult with VA case managers and mental health

workers regarding the residents.

Residents at LZ-II are subject to a number of restrictions.

While they may leave the residence, they are required to sign in

and out and must provide an account of their whereabouts.

LZ-II residents may not keep alcohol in their rooms, which are

subject to search by LZ-II at any time if the facility deems such

a search necessary. LZ-II conducts weekly inspections of every

resident’s room.

While at LZ-II, DeJesus participated in a voluntary

aftercare program, during which time Outzs-Cleveland was

available to him for continued therapy. At the time DeJesus was

admitted to LZ-II, Outzs-Cleveland had permission to release to

LZ-II all personal information regarding DeJesus that she had in

her possession, including his medical and psychiatric history.

Despite this permission, Outzs-Cleveland never released any of

this information to LZ-II. In fact, on her recommendation form

for LZ-II, Outzs-Cleveland indicated that DeJesus had no mental

health issues or behavioral problems, despite the evidence in the

VA records that DeJesus had intermittent explosive disorder and

suffered from violent outbursts and suicidal ideations.

On November 10, 1998, DeJesus contacted OutzsCleveland and informed her that he was engaged in court

proceedings to seek partial custody of or, at least, visitation

rights for his younger daughter, Felicia. At that time, he

indicated that his estranged wife would not allow him any

contact with her, and that his prior abusive behavior had led his

older children, Alex, Jr. and Candida, to avoid contact with him.

On January 15, 1999, DeJesus told Outzs-Cleveland that he was
9

“[g]etting quite frustrated with the court.” Despite a letter

Outzs-Cleveland wrote to the family court, DeJesus still had not

gained custody over his daughter and, in addition, Candida and

his wife had seen him at a custody hearing but refused to speak

to him. He expressed his gratitude to Outzs-Cleveland that he

was “in this facility to vent his feelings and maintain his

sobriety.”

On February 12, 1999, Outzs-Cleveland received a phone

call from a man requesting to speak to Camille. OutzsCleveland recognized DeJesus’s voice and realized that he had

mistakenly called her while trying to contact his estranged wife.

Her log entry following the conversation read:

Phone rang around 1500 [hours] and the person

on the other end asked for Camille. Responded

saying they had the wrong number and then

recognized the voice to be familiar. Asked if it

was A. DeJesus and this veteran responded,

“Yes.” Mr. DeJesus was trying to call Media to

contact his estranged wife and had some[how]

called the 7A do[r]m. Learned that he had just

been served his divorce papers and he was very

distraught on the phone. Talked briefly and asked

him to see undersigned [Outzs-Cleveland] ASAP

to process his feelings and talk. He said he would

call back.

(Emphasis added.) DeJesus never called back and OutzsCleveland never undertook any follow-up.

On March 22, 1999, DeJesus was working in the kitchen

at LZ-II, preparing breakfast with other residents. DeJesus
10

entered into a verbal confrontation with another LZ-II resident,

Bill Queen, over a dirty bucket of water. While residents’

versions of the events differed, all agreed that at some point

during the altercation, DeJesus picked up a knife, held it behind

his back, and Queen felt threatened. The knife incident only

lasted a matter of minutes, and, while DeJesus did not injure

anyone, the knife had to be forcibly removed from his hands.

After the altercation, LZ-II contacted Outzs-Cleveland

and Bruce Newell, Queen’s therapist, to discuss the situation.

The VA recommended that DeJesus be discharged. While LZ-II

claimed it was under no obligation to follow the VA’s

recommendation regarding his dismissal from the program, it

relied heavily on the VA staff’s advice and would not have

dismissed DeJesus but-for the VA’s recommendation. DeJesus

was involuntarily discharged from the LZ-II program for

“creating a physical threat with a weapon.” After he was told

that he would be discharged from LZ-II, DeJesus was “quiet”

and said he would leave. Before he left, DeJesus met OutzsCleveland, said that he loved her, gave away a number of his

personal possessions, and informed several people that he would

be walking to Maine or New Hampshire.

At this time, Outzs-Cleveland expressed concern over

DeJesus’s mental well-being and offered twice to take DeJesus

to seek a psychiatric evaluation. He declined both times. After

DeJesus declined to be seen, Outzs-Cleveland contacted Dr.

Stephen Chambers and Dr. Christopher Ray, two VA

psychologists, to inquire as to whether she could require

DeJesus to seek counseling before he left. Despite the existence

of involuntary commitment procedures at the VA, they both

informed her that he could not be forced to be seen because he
11

was an outpatient. However, when she asked them, she did not

inform them that DeJesus was giving away his possessions or

inform them about his prior history of domestic abuse and

suicidal ideations, often triggered by a change in job or home

situation. Had she informed him of that information, Dr.

Chambers believed he may have suggested she have DeJesus

involuntarily committed.

In her write-up following the incident, Outzs-Cleveland

wrote:

[DeJesus] didn’t quite understand or refused to

understand the seriousness of picking up this

knife to use as a weapon. He was offered twice

during meeting to be escorted over to Bldg 2 to

outpatient to have a STAT Psychiatric Consult.

Mr. DeJesus did not want to utilize this offer of

support and just said he would leave today after

he gave a few of his items away to current LZ-II

residents. He stated he would be walking to New

Hampshire or Maine. Concern arose by

undersign[ed] for him to be seen due to his past

history of wanting to hurt others, particularly his

estranged wife who recently served him divorce

papers and has not allowed contact with youngest

daughter for over a year. He is in a custody

battle with wife. He has also in past had thoughts

of hurting self.

(Emphasis added.) At no point on March 22 did DeJesus make

any specific threats against his wife or children.
The Philadelphia Veterans Multi-Service Center and LZ- 4

II are not participating in this appeal.

12

Following DeJesus’s release from LZ-II, the LZ-II staff

conducted a search of DeJesus’s room and found that he had

shredded much of his clothing, including a baseball cap that was

of particular importance to him. Despite the fact that this

behavior is consistent with suicidal tendencies, no one who was

called to consult thought to make use of Pennsylvania

involuntary commitment procedures or emergency psychiatric

intervention under the VA’s internal procedures.

DeJesus left LZ-II sometime on the afternoon of

March 22. Approximately eighteen hours later, on March 23,

DeJesus charged through the door of Camille’s apartment and

shot two of their children, Alex, Jr. and Felicia, and two

neighbor children, Aaron Faulk and Michael Faulk. Alex, Jr.,

Felicia and Aaron Faulk died immediately. Michael Faulk died

two days later in the hospital. After shooting the four children,

DeJesus turned the gun on himself. Upon hearing about an

incident involving a man killing his children and then himself on

the news, Outzs-Cleveland immediately thought it was DeJesus.

II.

On January 16, 2002, Camille and Faulk instituted a suit

against the United States, the VA, the Philadelphia Veterans

Multi-Service Center, and LZ-II under the Federal Tort Claims 4

Act (“FTCA”) individually and on behalf of the estates of their

children for the March 23 deaths. The Complaint included

claims for: (1) The VA’s gross negligence in discharging or
13

failing to treat DeJesus when he was an imminent threat,

(2) failure to warn, (3) wrongful death and (4) negligent

infliction of emotional distress.

The District Court granted the VA’s motion for summary

judgment on the plaintiffs’ failure-to-warn claims on

February 17, 2005, finding that a mental healthcare provider

only has a duty to warn if a “patient communicates a specific

and immediate threat of serious bodily injury against a

specifically identified or readily identifiable third party.”

Following the conclusion of pre-trial motions, the District Court

heard the remaining claims without a jury.

At trial, the plaintiffs presented an expert, Dr. Robert

Lloyd Goldstein, who testified that DeJesus’s behavior leading

up to the shootings was very consistent with someone suffering

from intermittent explosive disorder. He stated that the phone

call to Outzs-Cleveland indicated the beginning of a crisis. He

further testified that the incident with the knife was a sign of

decompensation (or deterioration). DeJesus’s diagnosis as

having intermittent explosive disorder “indicated . . . his

propensity to have explosive outbursts . . . Under the

circumstances it was certainly something to pause and be

concerned about.” In situations like the one presented following

the knife incident, Dr. Goldstein stated that it is imperative to

take into account a patient’s history when making treatment

decisions. He believed that the VA grossly failed in its duty in

this regard as no one was familiar with DeJesus’s full medical

history when someone should have been.

Dr. Goldstein also testified that, under the circumstances,

DeJesus should not have been released. His willingness to give
14

away his personal belongings indicated a propensity for suicidal

behavior. Further, anyone familiar with DeJesus’s tendency to

have violent outbursts after facing frustration in his home or

work life should have known that to expel him from LZ-II was,

in effect, to expel him from his job and to completely isolate

him from his support system not long after he learned he would

be getting divorced. Dr. Goldstein stated that to do so would be

to take someone who is already in crisis and seriously compound

that crisis. The failure to share readily-available information,

the failure to correctly recognize DeJesus’s suicidal tendencies,

and the failure to prevent DeJesus’s release constituted gross

negligence.

The VA also presented an expert witness, Dr. Brooke

Zitek, who testified regarding involuntary commitment

procedures in Pennsylvania. She testified that most patients who

are involuntarily committed are suffering from much more

severe psychotic episodes than DeJesus. “[T]he person is totally

lacking in terms of their [sic] judgment and their [sic] insight

into their [sic] illness.” She did not believe that DeJesus’s

behavior during the knife incident created a “clear and present

danger” as required by Pennsylvania commitment procedures.

Other than the February 4 phone call and the March 22 knife

incident, Dr. Zitek did not believe that DeJesus had exhibited

any behavior that indicated a serious demeanor change.

On cross examination, Dr. Zitek admitted that, of the

factors typically considered in determining whether a psychiatric

emergency existed, all of them applied to DeJesus. DeJesus also

exhibited several signs indicating a tendency toward suicide.

She also testified that “ideally the therapist would have known

[DeJesus’s] diagnosis.” However, Dr. Zitek maintained her
15

position that the VA did not grossly deviate from the standard of

care. In its final decision, the District Court stated that it found

Dr. Goldstein credible while Dr. Zitek’s testimony was

equivocal and unconvincing.

Following testimony, the District Court found sufficient

evidence to enter judgment against the VA, finding it was

grossly negligent in its determination that DeJesus should be

discharged from LZ-II and in its failure to commit DeJesus

following the discharge. These violations of the appropriate

standard of care proximately caused the shooting deaths of the

four children. Therefore, the District Court awarded damages

to Camille and Faulk individually and on behalf of the estates of

their children for gross negligence and wrongful death.

Additionally, the District Court found that Camille had proven

the necessary elements for negligent infliction of emotional

distress and awarded her additional damages on that claim.

III.

The District Court had jurisdiction over this FTCA claim

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). We exercise jurisdiction over

this appeal from a final judgment of the District Court pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the legal decisions of a district

court conducting a bench trial de novo, but “[f]indings of fact

shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous and due regard

must be given to the trial court’s judgments as to the credibility

of the witnesses.” Colliers Lanard & Axilbund v. Lloyds of

London, 458 F.3d 231, 236 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Fed. R. Civ.

P. 52(a)). Because the liability of the United States under the

FTCA is determined by the law of the state where the allegedly

tortious act occurred, 28 U.S.C. § 2647, we will look to the state
16

courts to determine how to resolve the underlying legal issues.

If there is no applicable decision from the state’s highest court,

we are charged with predicting how that court would resolve the

issue, considering “(1) what that court has said in related areas;

(2) the decisional law of the state intermediate courts; (3) federal

cases interpreting state law; and (4) decisions from other

jurisdictions that have discussed the issue.” Id. (internal

citations omitted). We “must attribute significant weight to

these [lower state court] decisions in the absence of any

indication that the highest state court would rule otherwise.” Id.

Because the conduct in question took place in Pennsylvania, its

law properly governs this action.

IV.

The primary issue that we are presented with is whether

the VA had a duty under Pennsylvania law to protect the third

parties who were killed when DeJesus was released from LZ-II.

Because Camille and Faulk have cross-appealed the District

Court’s decision to grant the VA summary judgment on their

failure-to-warn claims, we begin our analysis with the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Emerich v.

Philadelphia Center for Human Development, Inc., 720 A.2d

1032 (Pa. 1998). Taking its cue from the California Supreme

Court’s landmark decision in Tarasoff v. Regents of the

University of California, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1978), the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized that, while there is

generally no duty to control the conduct of a third party, where

the defendant stands in a special relationship to the victim or

some other party, the victim deserves protection. Emerich, 720

A.2d at 1037. Therefore, the Court held that when a mental

health professional determines that her patient presents a serious
17

danger of violence to another, that mental health professional

has an affirmative duty to warn the intended victim. Id. at 1039-

40.

However, recognizing that to read that duty too broadly

would result in crippling an already heavily-burdened

profession, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court carefully delineated

its application. Before a mental health provider has a duty to

warn or otherwise protect a third party from a threat presented

by a patient in her care, the threat must be a specific and

immediate threat of serious harm, and the victim must be readily

identifiable. Id. at 1041.

In their cross-appeal, Camille and Faulk make a novel

argument regarding why the VA had a duty to warn Camille of

her husband’s behavior. However, this is a clear case where

Emerich does not apply. Camille and Faulk agree that there was

no specific threat of immediate harm made against Camille or

her children before DeJesus left LZ-II. Rather, they argue that

because Outzs-Cleveland wrote a letter to the family court

attesting to DeJesus’s improved mental health, the VA then had

a duty to inform any person who may have relied on that letter

if DeJesus’s mental health state changed. However, the

outcome of court proceedings can affect numerous parties, and

it would be very difficult to identify all persons who would have

relied on Outzs-Cleveland’s letter. Because of the Pennsylvania

Supreme Court’s narrow reading of failure-to-warn claims, we

do not believe that, given the opportunity, it would expand
We also note that Camille’s and Faulk’s reliance on 5

Cipriani v. Sun Pipeline Co., 574 A.2d 706 (Pa. Super. Ct.

1990), and Schwartz v. United States, 230 F. Supp. 536 (E.D.

Pa. 1964), is misplaced. In both cases, the court found that a

defendant who had created a risk of harm was under a duty to

prevent that harm from taking effect. Cipriani relied on Section

321 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which provides that

where an actor has created a risk of harm, the actor is under a

duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent the risk from taking

effect. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 321. While the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court has never adopted Section 321,

Glick v. Martin & Mohler, Inc., 535 A.2d 626, 629 (Pa. Super.

Ct. 1987), even if it had, this case would not be an appropriate

Section 321 action. Unlike the plaintiffs in Cipriani and

Schwartz, the parties who were likely to be affected by OutzCleveland’s letter to the family court are not easily identifiable.

To use Section 321 to expand the limited duty in Emerich to

cases where an affirmative statement by a mental health worker

may affect some unidentified party would impose a vague and

unworkable standard. As the California Supreme Court said in

Tarasoff, application of Section 321 liability in situations such

as this raises “difficult problems of cauastion and of public

policy.” Tarasoff, 551 P.2d at 349 n.18. Therefore we do not

believe the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would impose liability

on the VA based on Section 321 of the Restatement.

18

Emerich to a situation that involves no specific threat of

immediate harm against a readily identifiable victim.5
19

V.

As the District Court did not base its judgment against

the VA on a failure-to-warn claim, we next address whether

Camille and Faulk appropriately recovered because the VA

owed a different duty to their children. In all tort cases, a duty

may be imposed either through common-law case development

or through statute. Emerson v. Adult Cmty. Total Servs., Inc.,

842 F. Supp. 152, 155 (E.D. Pa. 1994); see Serbin v. Ziebart

Intern. Corp., Inc., 11 F.3d 1163, 1167-68 (3d Cir. 1993)

(looking to both statute and common law to determine existence

of a duty). We therefore look to both kinds of duties to

determine the scope of the VA’s duty to the third-party victims

in the case before us.

A.

While the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not

specifically addressed the common-law duty to protect third

parties in situations other than failure to warn, the Pennsylvania

Superior Court has twice stated that there is no common-law

duty to protect third parties in situations like the one presented

here. In F.D.P. v. Ferrara, 804 A.2d 1221 (Pa. Super. Ct.

2002), the parents of a girl who was sexually assaulted by a

resident of a mental health facility brought suit against the

operators of that facility. They alleged, inter alia, that the

mental health facility was negligent in failing to seek a civil

commitment of the resident, who had a long history of sexual

misconduct. Id. at 1225. The court found that there was no

general duty to control the conduct of a third party to protect

another from harm “unless there is a special relationship . . . that

imposes a duty upon the actor to control the third person’s
These considerations include: “‘(1) the relationship 6

between the parties; (2) the social utility of the actor’s conduct;

(3) the nature of the risk imposed and the foreseeability of the

harm incurred; (4) the consequences of imposing a duty upon

the actor; (5) the overall public interest in the proposed

solution.’” Ferrara, 804 A.2d at 1231 (quoting Brisbine v.

Outside in Sch. of Experiential Educ., Inc., 799 A.2d 89, 95 (Pa.

Super. Ct. 2002)).

20

conduct or unless there is a special relation between the actor

and the other . . . .” Id. at 1228. No such duty existed as to the

facility. Further, the court declined to adopt Section 319 of the

Restatement, which imposes a duty to prevent a third-person

from doing harm on “[o]ne who takes charge of a third person

whom he knows or should know to be likely to cause bodily

harm to others if not controlled.” Restatement (Second) Torts

§ 319. Based on balancing policy considerations, the court 6

stated:

If we allow recovery against mental health and

mental retardation providers for harm caused by

patients except in the clearest circumstances, we

would paralyze a sector of society that performs

a valuable service to those in need of mental

health care. Thus, we decline to impose a duty of

ordinary care under Restatement (Second) of

Torts [Section] 319 on providers of mental health

and mental retardation services.

Id. at 1232; see also Heil v. Brown, 662 A.2d 669, 671 (Pa.

Super. Ct. 1995) (refusing to find common-law duty where a
Dicta in Emerich suggests that there may be a duty 7

greater than simply the duty to warn. For example, the Supreme

Court indicated that mental health care professionals maintain

a special relationship with their patients. Emerich, 720 A.2d at

1037. It also referred to Section 319 of the Restatement

(Second) of Torts, which it cited “with approval” in its decision

in Goryeb v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, 575

A.2d 545, 549 (Pa. 1990). While this discussion indicates that

the Pennsylvania Supreme Court sees some value in imposing

a duty to control dangerous patients on mental healthcare

providers who take charge of these patients, there is no

indication that the Supreme Court would expand such a duty to

such an extent as to find a common-law duty to commit in a

situation such as the one presented here.

21

police officer was struck by a vehicle driven by a patient

receiving voluntary outpatient care from the defendant health

institution).

We find this reasoning compelling and believe that, given

the opportunity, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would adopt

a similar approach. It is unlikely that the Pennsylvania 7

Supreme Court would adopt a general common-law duty to

commit a patient or otherwise protect third parties from a mental

health patient absent a special relationship. Therefore, liability

cannot be based on a common-law duty owed to the four victims

in this case.
22

B.

However, duties that give rise to claims sounding in tort

are not found only in common-law decisions. In 1976, the

Pennsylvania legislature passed the Mental Health Procedures

Act (“MHPA”). P.L. 817, No. 143 (1976). The relevant portion

reads:

In the absence of willful misconduct or gross

negligence, a county administrator, a director of a

facility, a physician, a peace officer or any other

authorized person who participates in a decision

that a person be examined or treated under this

act, or that a person be discharged, or placed

under partial hospitalization, outpatient care or

leave of absence, or that the restraint upon such

person be otherwise reduced, or a county

administrator or other authorized person who

denies an application for voluntary treatment or

for involuntary emergency examination and

treatment, shall not be civilly or criminally liable

for such decision or for any of its consequences.

50 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7114(a).

Taking the converse of the statutory language, the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court has found an affirmative duty

exists requiring that mental health institutions avoid gross

negligence or willful misconduct in the treatment of mental

health patients. Sherk v. Dauphin, 614 A.2d 226, 232 (Pa.

1992). In the landmark case on the MHPA, Goryeb v.

Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, 575 A.2d 545 (Pa.
23

1990), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the act’s

language, which limits liability, also expressly creates a duty:

When a Commonwealth party participates in a

decision that a person be examined, treated or

discharged pursuant to the Mental Health

Procedures Act, such a party shall not be civilly or

criminally liable for such decision or for any of its

consequences except in the case of willful

misconduct or gross negligence. Conversely, and

most importantly to the instant case, a

Commonwealth party participating in a decision

to examine, treat or discharge a mentally ill

patient within the purview of the Mental Health

Procedures Act who commits willful misconduct

or gross negligence can be liable for such

decision.

Id. at 548-49 (emphasis added).

The Supreme Court further explicated the scope of the

duty created by the MHPA. The language in the MHPA states

that no liability will be imposed for the decision itself “or for

any of its consequences.” 50 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7114(a).

“Clearly, the words ‘any of its consequences’ indicate the

legislative recognition that discharging a severely mentally

disabled person . . . is a potential serious danger not only to the

patient himself but to ‘others.’” Goryeb, 575 A.2d at 549.

Therefore, whenever a plaintiff can prove that the hospital failed

to meet its duty to refrain from gross negligence in decisions

regarding treatment, discharge or commitment of a patient, the

hospital is liable for injury “‘to the person or property of third
The court ultimately found that the Guidance Center had 8

not behaved in a grossly negligent manner.

Under the FTCA, the federal government can only be 9

held liable for breaches of duties imposed on private, rather than

state, parties. United States v. Olson, 546 U.S. 43, 43 (2005)

(holding that the federal government cannot be held liable for

violating duties that are imposed solely on state governments

acting in their peculiar positions as governments). In this case,

24

parties where such injury resulted from a hospital’s negligent

failure to meet its responsibility.’” Id. (quoting Vattimo v.

Lower Bucks Hosp., Inc., 465 A.2d 1231, 1240 (Pa. 1983)); see

also Sherk, 614 A.2d at 232.

Based on Goryeb and Sherk, the Superior Court in

Ferrara found that there was a duty created by the Mental

Health and Mental Retardation Act, an act similar in structure

and purpose to the MHPA. Ferrara, 804 A.2d at 1233. The

court held that the Guidance Center, a non-profit organization

that provided only guidance to the residents of Group Home,

had a duty to refrain from gross negligence. Id. at 1233.8

Therefore, if LZ-II is a facility covered by the MHPA, then the

VA had a duty to refrain from gross negligence in its treatment

and discharge decisions regarding DeJesus.

1.

The first question that presents itself under the MHPA is

whether Outzs-Cleveland and the other VA parties involved in

DeJesus’s release from LZ-II are subject to the MHPA. The VA

argues that, in this instance, they were not. The MHPA applies 9
the VA has conceded that the MHPA applies to it even if the

MHPA is written so as to apply only to governmental entities in

Pennsylvania. If there is a duty in these circumstances under the

MHPA, the VA agrees that the duty applies to it. Therefore, we

do not engage in an analysis of whether providing mental health

assistance and committing patients is a duty that is peculiar to

Pennsylvania state mental health facilities as governmental

entities.

Discharge is not defined under the MHPA. 10

25

to physicians or other authorized persons who “participate in” a

decision to treat or examine a person under the act, or a decision

regarding discharge. 50 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7114. “Treatment” 10

is defined as “diagnosis, evaluation, therapy, or rehabilitation

needed to alleviate pain and distress and to facilitate the

recovery of a person from mental illness and shall also include

care and other services that supplement treatment and aid or

promote such recovery.” 50 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7104. It is

uncontraverted that Outzs-Cleveland treated DeJesus. As his

primary therapist, Outzs-Cleveland undertook therapy sessions

with DeJesus, provided him support, and helped him deal with

his substance abuse problems.

Further, both Outzs-Cleveland and Dr. Chambers

participated in the decision to discharge DeJesus from LZ-II.

While the VA has argued that it was LZ-II, not the VA, that

ultimately decided to discharge DeJesus, the District Court

found that the VA and its employees were key players in all

decisions LZ-II made regarding DeJesus, particularly in the

decision to release DeJesus from LZ-II. We can reverse this
26

determination only if it is clearly erroneous. Miller v. Phila.

Geriatric Ctr., 463 F.3d 266, 270 (3d Cir. 2006). Based on the

fact that LZ-II consulted the VA staff extensively before making

a decision to release DeJesus and that the VA provided all

mental health care to LZ-II residents, we find that the District

Court did not err in its determination that the VA, and not LZ-II,

was primarily responsible for the decision to release DeJesus.

However, determining that the VA provided physicians

and other authorized persons who participated in decisions

regarding DeJesus’s ultimate discharge does not bring it within

the MHPA. Rather, the VA is only liable under the duty

imposed by the MHPA if DeJesus was a patient at an

appropriate facility. The MHPA applies to “involuntary

treatment of mentally ill persons, whether inpatient or

outpatient, and for all voluntary inpatient treatment of mentally

ill persons.” 50 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7103. Pennsylvania courts

have held that the MHPA does not apply to voluntary outpatient

treatment. Emerich, 720 A.2d at 1038 n.7; see also Chartiers

Comm. Mental Health & Retardation Center, Inc. v. Dept. of

Pub. Welfare, 696 A.2d 244, 247-48 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1997).

Prior to trial, both parties stipulated to the fact that, when

he was at LZ-II, DeJesus was receiving outpatient treatment

from the VA. However, that stipulation is not dispositive. In

the case before us, we are not examining the VA’s decision to

discharge DeJesus from the voluntary, outpatient treatment he

was receiving from Outzs-Cleveland and others at the VA.

Rather, we are examining the VA’s decision to have LZ-II

release DeJesus from the community in which he had been

living for over a year. Nothing in the MHPA requires that the

physician or other authorized person actually work for the
The VA agreed to broad construction in its opening 11

brief submitted to this Court. “[T]his protection granted to

mental health workers is to be construed broadly . . . .”

27

inpatient facility where the patient is located. Rather, it requires

that a physician or authorized person “participates in” a decision

to treat or discharge the patient. Therefore, if DeJesus was an

inpatient at LZ-II, and the VA participated in a decision to treat

or discharge him, it may still be liable under the MHPA for

improperly suggesting that LZ-II discharge DeJesus and then

failing to commit him.

Whether a community living facility like LZ-II

constitutes a facility that provides inpatient treatment is a

question of first impression for this Court and the Pennsylvania

courts. As in all cases that depend on statutory interpretation,

we begin with the language of the statute. Under the MHPA:

“Inpatient treatment” shall include all treatment

that requires full or part-time residence in a

facility. For the purposes of this act, a “facility”

means any mental health establishment, hospital,

clinic, institution, center, day care center, base

service unit, community mental health center, or

part thereof, that provides for the diagnosis,

treatment, care or rehabilitation of mentally ill

persons, whether as inpatients or outpatients.

50 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7103.

Generally, the terms of the MHPA have been broadly

construed by Pennsylvania courts. For example, in Allen v. 11
28

Montgomery Hospital, 696 A.2d 1175 (Pa. 1997), the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the limited liability

provision of the MHPA extended to care given by a physician in

a hospital for physical ailments plaguing a mentally ill patient.

“[T]he General Assembly did not intend to limit treatment to

that only directly related to a patient’s mental illness. Instead,

treatment is given a broader meaning in the MHPA to include

medical care coincident to mental health care.” Id. at 307. The

broad construction of the MHPA guides our interpretation of the

inpatient requirement and leads us to believe that the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court would find that, under the specific

facts of this case, LZ-II was providing inpatient treatment to

DeJesus.

The District Court found the following facts: LZ-II had

rules by which its residents must abide to continue living there;

LZ-II residents were prohibited from having alcohol in their

rooms; residents at LZ-II were required to sign in and out of the

facility; LZ-II oversaw residents’ finances to ensure residents

were being fiscally responsible; LZ-II reserved the right to

conduct room searches at any time and conducted actual

searches on a weekly basis; as an LZ-II resident, DeJesus took

part in group therapy sessions and continued counseling in

substance abuse; as an LZ-II resident, DeJesus had around-theclock mental health help available to him; DeJesus had

continued access to his primary therapist. Based on these

specific facts, we conclude that DeJesus was an inpatient within

the meaning of the MHPA.

DeJesus was not simply residing in an apartment

subsidized by LZ-II. Rather, he was a resident at a facility that

closely monitored nearly every aspect of his life: his job, his
29

daily movements, his finances, and his mental well-being. Even

his ability to retain his place of residence rested on his continued

willingness to abide by rules that limited his freedom and

involved a substantial reduction in his personal privacy. LZ-II,

in addition to providing DeJesus with a place to live, provided

him, through its contract with the VA, with 24-hour access to

mental health care, continued individual and group therapy, and

lessons in the life skills necessary for a recovering substanceabuser with a history of mental instability to transition to life

outside the controlled walls of LZ-II. The combination of the

restrictions imposed on DeJesus and the services provided by

LZ-II make it an “institution . . . that provides for the diagnosis,

treatment, care or rehabilitation of mentally ill persons, whether

as outpatients or inpatients.” 50 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7103.

Even if LZ-II could not be termed an institution that

provides treatment of mentally ill persons in and of itself, it is

still a qualifying facility under the MHPA. Section 7103

includes in its definition of facility “any mental health

establishment . . . or part thereof” that treats mentally ill

persons. Id. (emphasis added). While LZ-II is a privately run

group home, its location, organization and funding make it “part

of” the VA Coatesville compound, which is clearly a qualifying

facility. LZ-II operates primarily on grant money from the VA.

It is located on the VA Coatesville property in a building owned

by the VA. It has a contract with the VA in which the VA

provides medical and psychiatric services as well as fire and

police protection. LZ-II conferences regularly with VA

counselors, psychologists, and psychiatrists regarding the

treatment of LZ-II residents, and the VA commonly transfers

patients from its inpatient Domiciliary Program to LZ-II as a
30

way for those patients to transition to life outside the facility.

These factors are sufficient to show that LZ-II was not an

isolated residential facility, but rather a part of an integrated

campus designed to serve the total health of veterans.

Therefore, at a minimum, LZ-II is “part of” a facility that

provides “diagnosis, treatment, care or rehabilitation of mentally

ill persons, whether as inpatients or outpatients.” Id.

Further, while DeJesus’s interactions with VA therapy

may technically be termed “outpatient treatment,” viewing his

overall treatment in combination with his residence at LZ-II

indicates he was receiving voluntary, inpatient treatment. Under

the MHPA, “‘[i]npatient treatment’ shall include all treatment

that requires full or part-time residence in a facility.” Id. While

DeJesus could have continued to contact Outzs-Cleveland had

he lived anywhere, in order to receive around-the-clock mental

health assistance, continued group therapy, and the lessons in

life skills, in addition to his contact with Outzs-Cleveland,

DeJesus was required to maintain residence at LZ-II. The

restrictions placed on DeJesus by LZ-II, his continued therapy

with VA professionals, and the VA’s intimate relationship with

LZ-II, taken in the aggregate, satisfy us that DeJesus was

receiving inpatient treatment at a qualifying facility under the

MHPA. Because, as we have indicated above, the VA

participated in a decision to discharge DeJesus from that

inpatient facility, it had a duty to refrain from gross negligence

in that decision and its treatment of DeJesus.

2.

Having determined that the VA had a duty under the

MHPA, we must next consider whether its behavior was
31

sufficiently negligent to meet the “gross negligence” standard

under the MHPA. In order to recover from an institution

involved in mental health decisions, a plaintiff must prove more

than simple negligence. The MHPA grants immunity to such

institutions unless the plaintiff can show willful conduct or gross

negligence. 50 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7114(a).

“It appears that the legislature intended to require

that liability be premised on facts indicating more

egregiously deviant conduct than ordinary

carelessness, inadvertence, laxity, or indifference.

We hold that the legislature intended the term

gross negligence to mean a form of negligence

where the facts support substantially more than

ordinary carelessness, inadvertence, laxity, or

indifference. The behavior of the defendant must

be flagrant, grossly deviating from the ordinary

standard of care.”

Albright v. Abbington Mem. Hosp., 696 A.2d 1159, 1164 (Pa.

1997) (quoting Bloom v. DuBois Reg’l Med. Ctr., 597 A.2d 671,

679 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991)); Walsh v. Borczon, 881 A.2d 1, 7 (Pa.

Super. Ct. 2005). While the behavior must be more than simple

negligence, it need not reach the level of wanton conduct.

“Negligence consists of inattention or inadvertence, whereas

wantonness exists where the danger to the plaintiff, though

realized, is so recklessly disregarded that, even though there be

no actual intent, there is at least a willingness to inflict injury, a

conscious indifference to the perpetration of the wrong.”

Bloom, 597 A.2d at 679. Gross negligence lies somewhere in

between.
32

In its very thorough decision, the District Court ruled that

the VA was grossly negligent in a number of ways. First, the

District Court found that the failure of any member of the VA

staff to be fully familiar with DeJesus’s medical condition was

a “gross deviation from the required standard of care in treating

a patient.” Further, the District Court ruled that the VA’s

decision to discharge DeJesus when he “was distressed and

irrational, displaying poor control of his violent urges by

brandishing a knife in his place of employment” and making

comments “that his Primary Therapist believed were potentially

suicidal” also constituted a gross breach of the standard of care.

Finally, the District Court ruled that the VA was negligent in

failing to commit or detain DeJesus for a psychiatric

consultation once he had been discharged from LZ-II. Given

DeJesus’s behavior on March 22, the District Court stated that

there was sufficient evidence to have DeJesus committed under

Pennsylvania law or the VA’s internal commitment procedures,

which require a “clear and present danger to [the patient] or

others.” However, as the VA staff was unclear about its own

commitment procedures and failed to conduct an appropriate

suicide or psychiatric assessment, its conduct was grossly

negligent. We review the District Court’s determination that the

VA acted in a grossly negligent manner for clear error. See

Rodriquez v. United States, 823 F.2d 735, 742 (3d Cir. 1987).

The Pennsylvania cases finding only simple negligence

involve significantly less egregious breaches of the standard of

care than that exhibited here and often lack sufficient expert

testimony to prove the plaintiff’s case. For example, in

Albright, after the plaintiff’s wife missed an appointment, and

with only four days remaining in a 90-day involuntary outpatient
33

treatment program, the plaintiff contacted the hospital because

his wife was not taking her medication, seemed to be suffering

from a manic episode, was chain smoking and had left a turkey

to burn in the oven. The hospital responded by setting up an

appointment with the plaintiff’s wife after the holidays and

encouraging the plaintiff to bring her to the hospital for

involuntary commitment, a suggestion the plaintiff ignored.

Soon thereafter, the plaintiff’s wife was smoking carelessly and

burned down their house, taking her own life with it. The

Pennsylvania Supreme Court found this was insufficient to find

gross negligence. Albright, 696 A.2d at 1165-66. While the

hospital’s failure to follow-up when the plaintiff’s wife missed

an appointment may have been an exercise of poor judgment, id.

at 1167, the hospital did take some affirmative steps to repair the

error by scheduling an appointment and encouraging the

plaintiff to have his wife committed. Id. at 1166. “The purpose

of the [MHPA’s] immunity provision is to insulate mental health

employees and their employers from liability for the very

determination made by the Hospital here.” Id. at 1167.

Unlike Albright, the District Court found that the VA had

more serious warning signs regarding DeJesus’s condition than

simply leaving a turkey burning in the oven. Further, no one on

the VA’s staff was familiar with DeJesus’s medical history, no

one scheduled any kind of an appointment after he called

distraught over his pending divorce, and there was insufficient

communication between members of the VA staff.

Further, Camille and Faulk presented detailed expert

testimony by Dr. Goldstein indicating that the VA’s behavior

grossly deviated from the appropriate standard of care. Dr.

Goldstein testified that “the act of discharging [DeJesus] would
34

. . . take someone who’s already in crisis and . . . compound the

crisis many fold . . . . It’s very inexplicable.” He further

testified as to five specific breaches and characterized them as

“extreme and egregious”:

Well, I’d have to say they were very

extreme and egregious, really, because multiple,

multiple breaches, breakdowns in the system,

multiple deviations, departures from the accepted

standard of care. And in addition, it was the

factor of the dimension of it being known that the

– in other words, the person with the clinical

responsibility, [Outzs-Cleveland], recognized the

risk, explained why there was a risk, very well

documented notes, and then proceeded to do

nothing about it.

[I]n other words, she recognized the

danger, and didn’t take appropriate steps, maybe

because she didn’t know how to take them. So I

would say it was a major, major breakdown.

In its findings of fact, the District Court explicitly stated that it

gave great credence to Dr. Goldstein’s testimony, a credibility

determination to which we give considerable deference. Dr.

Goldstein’s testimony, unlike the testimony in cases finding only

simple negligence, unequivocally stated that the breach of duty

in this case went beyond mere carelessness or inadvertence. It

was what Dr. Goldstein called “a major, major breakdown.”

See, e.g., Walsh, 881 A.2d at 8 (holding that there was

insufficient evidence of gross negligence where expert only

testified that clinic’s failure to follow-up with patient was
35

“mismanagement” and “under-appreciation” of plaintiff’s

condition); Downey v. Crozer-Chester Med. Ctr., 817 A.2d 517,

26 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003) (holding that expert’s testimony was

insufficient to establish gross negligence where expert

characterized hospital’s failure to supervise patient while

bathing only as a deviation from the standard of care).

This case closely accords with a decision of the Court of

Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County, which,

while in no way binding, is instructive. In Mertz v. Temple

University Hospital, 25 Pa. D. & C. 4th 541 (Pa. Comm. Pl.

1995), the court found sufficient evidence of gross negligence

where a hospital failed to commit a patient after he exhibited

signs of suicide. Id. at 557-58. The psychiatrist on duty failed

to do anything more than review the patient’s chart before

releasing him. The court ruled that the hospital should have

spent more time with the plaintiff and his medical records before

releasing him, resulting in the hospital’s liability for damages

resulting from his subsequent suicide. Id. at 558; see also

Bloom, 597 A.2d at 679 (sufficient evidence of gross negligence

to withstand summary judgment where patient was admitted to

the psychiatric unit, was not diagnosed or treated, and was later

found hanging by her shoelaces in a bathroom in the unit).

In fact-intensive inquiries such as these, due deference is

owed to the District Court’s determination. Based on its

extensive factual findings and application of the facts to the law

of gross negligence, we are satisfied that the District Court’s

determination that the VA was grossly negligent is not only not

clearly erroneous, but is a correct decision.
36

VI.

In summary, because DeJesus did not make a threat of

immediate harm against a readily identifiable victim, Camille’s

and Faulk’s failure-to-warn claims were properly dismissed.

However, the VA was under a statutory duty to refrain from

gross negligence in its treatment of DeJesus, and the District

Court did not err in its determination that the VA acted in such

a grossly negligent manner when it strongly encouraged LZ-II

to discharge DeJesus and then failed to commit him under its

procedures or Pennsylvania’s MHPA. These egregious breaches

of the appropriate standard of care resulted in the tragic shooting

deaths of four children and DeJesus’s own suicide. Therefore,

and for the reasons fully stated above, we will affirm the

judgment of the District Court.