Case Name: John E. LAWLOR, III, As Personal Representative of the Estate of Bryan D. Wood, Appellant, v. Jacqueline ORLANDO, PhD, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-08-30
Citations: 795 So. 2d 147
Docket Number: No. 1D00-1887
Parties: John E. LAWLOR, III, As Personal Representative of the Estate of Bryan D. Wood, Appellant, v. Jacqueline ORLANDO, PhD, Appellee.
Judges: BOOTH and LEWIS, JJ., CONCUR; BENTON, J., DISSENTS WITH WRITTEN OPINION.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 795
Pages: 147–151

Head Matter:
John E. LAWLOR, III, As Personal Representative of the Estate of Bryan D. Wood, Appellant, v. Jacqueline ORLANDO, PhD, Appellee.
No. 1D00-1887.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Aug. 30, 2001.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 3, 2001.
D. Andrew Vloedman of Perry & Vloed-man, Gainesville; and James J. Taylor, Jr. of Taylor & Taylor, Keystone Heights, for appellant.
Marlene S. Reiss and Stephens Lynn Klein, Miami, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of an order granting final summary judgment in a cause of action for negligence in favor of a psychotherapist. The trial court found that the suicide of a former patient was not sufficiently foreseeable to impose a duty under the circumstances of this case. This appeal presents a case of first impression on the issue of whether a psychotherapist owes a legal duty to an outpatient client who commits suicide. Athough Florida law would clearly impose a duty on a psy- ehotherapist for failure to safeguard a patient from harming himself in a custodial setting, see, e.g., Paddock v. Chacko, 522 So.2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), review denied, 553 So.2d 168 (Fla.1989), no Florida cases extend the duty of custodial supervision and care to the outpatient relationship between a psychotherapist and a patient. We affirm the trial court's granting of final summary judgment in favor of the appellee, Dr. Orlando, based on the court's finding of no legal duty under the facts of this case.
The appellant argues that Dr. Orlando owed a duty to the decedent, Dr. Wood, at the time of Dr. Wood's suicide and that there is a disputed issue as to whether the suicide was foreseeable such that the question of Dr. Orlando's negligent liability should go to a jury. However, the issue of duty is a question of law to be determined by the trial court as a "minimum threshold legal requirement for opening the courthouse doors" before the "more specific factual requirement" to prove causation can go to the trier of fact. McCain v. Florida Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500, 502 (Fla.1992) (footnote omitted; emphasis in original). In determining the threshold issue of legal duty, a trial court is required to examine the factual allegations which go to the question of whether a duty was foreseeable. See McCain, 593 So.2d at 502, n. 1. Facts to support foreseeability can be relevant to both the element of duty and the element of proximate causation. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Periera, 705 So.2d 1359 (Fla.1998), citing McCain, 593 So.2d at 502. The necessary examination of facts, which the supreme court recognizes may be essential in determining whether or not a legal duty exists, does not make any part of the duty analysis a jury question.
In ruling on the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court appropriately reviewed all the supporting materials, including the deposition and affidavit of plaintiffs expert. Under McCain, the trial court correctly considered all the factual allegations in performing the foreseeability analysis as to the duty element. While there is a foreseeability analysis that would be performed by the trier of fact in regard to proximate causation, the duty analysis of the trial court must result in a finding of duty as a matter of law before the issue of proximate causation becomes relevant. Id.
Upon our review of the record on appeal, we see nothing other than the opinion of plaintiffs expert to indicate that the suicide of Dr. Orlando's patient might have been foreseeable. The testimony of Dr. Wood's ex-wife and others who knew him during the time he was being treated by Dr. Orlando was that Dr. Wood showed no indication of suicidal tendencies; there is no evidence of suicide attempts, threats of suicide, nor any mention of suicide; and a suicide screening done in connection with Dr. Wood's brief incarceration only a few months prior to his suicide revealed no risk of suicide. There is evidence that Dr. Wood suffered from depression and met other risk factors, but that evidence does not necessarily create a foreseeable zone of risk of suicide for imposing a legal duty on Dr. Wood's psychotherapist.
We agree with the trial court's finding that the opinion testimony of plaintiffs expert was insufficient to impose a legal duty on Dr. Orlando in light of other facts and circumstances in this case and in light of relevant Florida law which has not yet imposed a legal duty on a psychotherapist for the suicide of a client who is being treated in an outpatient situation.
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH and LEWIS, JJ., CONCUR; BENTON, J., DISSENTS WITH WRITTEN OPINION.