News

Satcher and Reading Win Significant Psychiatric Appeal

The Georgia Supreme Court recently denied an appeal by the Plaintiff in a psychiatric malpractice case refusing to expand a psychiatrist’s duty to warn about a potentially dangerous patient. The Court of Appeals of Georgia previously had affirmed a trial court decision in favor of the doctor in a wrongful death action brought by the estate of the mother of an adult psychiatric patient who stabbed her to death. The case alleged that the death was due to the negligence of the physician in changing the patient’s medication regimen a few months prior to the event and that the psychiatrist had failed to warn the mother that the son might become more violent as a result.

The decisions by the appellate courts reaffirm the general rule that a doctor does not have a duty to prevent harm to third parties except where the physician has control over a patient who is known to be violent and may cause harm to others or where there is a special relationship between the physician and the injured party. In this case, the patient was living at home with his parents such that the doctor did not have the type of control necessary over the patient to satisfy the exception to the general rule. Also, the decisions flatly reject the argument that the treating physician owes a special duty to others who may be present for and provide historical information during the course of a patient’s treatment. In this case, the mother was present for many of the doctor’s sessions with the patient and provided historical information that helped the doctor to better treat the patient. Furthermore, the Court found that the psychiatrist did not owe a duty to this third party who was fully aware of the potential danger posed by her son.

The ruling of the Court of Appeals recognized significant policy reasons for prohibiting the expansion of a physician’s duty. “[T]he imposition of liability in this case for an outpatient under these circumstances could discourage physicians from including the relatives of any mental health patient - or for that matter, the relative of a minor - in the treatment process out of concern that the physician would be exposed to liability.” In the psychiatric realm, the Court cautioned that expanding a physician’s duty of care to third parties outside the limitations previously adopted by Georgia courts could discourage outpatient care to the detriment of the state’s express policy of providing the ‘least restrictive appropriate care and treatment’ to mental patients.”

Milton B. Satcher and Melissa Phillips Reading of Owen, Gleaton, Egan, Jones & Sweeney, LLP represent the psychiatrist. The opinion is available at 290 Ga. App. 638, 660 S.E. 2d 440 (2008).