Supreme Court to Decide Pair of Mental Health Procedures Act Cases, Outlining the Contours of Claims Against Treatment Providers.

“One of the purposes of the Mental Health Procedures Act is to provide limited protection from civil and criminal liability to mental health personnel and their employers in rendering treatment in this unscientific and inexact field.” Farago v. Sacred Heart Gen. Hosp., 562 A.2d 300, 304 (Pa. 1989) (citing 50 P.S. § 7114). Every so often, a tragic incident breaks through the bulwark of Pennsylvania’s intermediate, error-correcting courts, calling out for resolution by the High Court. Matos and Wunderly are two such currently pending cases.

Matos v. Geisinger involves a situation in which an individual with a record of psychiatric issues submitted himself for voluntary inpatient examination at two treatment centers but was not accepted for treatment at either. He, shortly thereafter, murdered his girlfriend, whose estate now claims the treatment providers were grossly negligent under the MHPA. The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether evidence that treatment has been formally initiated (rather than just considered) is a condition for the exposure to liability under the MHPA for voluntary treatment as it has been ruled to be for involuntary treatment. See 314 A.3d 512 (Pa. 2023) (allocatur grant).

Wunderly v. St. Luke’s Hospital involves a situation of a residential patient who experienced pressure-related skin breakdown and deterioration of existing wounds. Following the patient’s death, the estate claims that medical negligence led to his demise. In defense, the treatment providers assert the patient was admitted to the facility for mental health treatment on an involuntary basis under Section 302 of the MHPA, and, therefore, the ancillary medical treatment given to this mental health patient brings any liability claim within the strictures of the MHPA. The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the Superior Court erred in affirming the dismissal of the case or, instead, whether the MHPA does not apply to the case at all. See 310 A.3d 715 (Pa. 2023) (allocatur grant).

Mental health treatment is often its own reward, and something many of us might rather not have a role in. But the General Assembly has enshrined in law a strict and strong policy of “assuring the availability of adequate treatment to those who are mentally ill.” Leight v. University of Pittsburgh Physicians, 243 A.3d 126, 130 (Pa. 2020) (citing 50 P.S. § 7102). The Supreme Court is again called upon to guide the bench, bar, and emergency department on the contours of civil liability for treatment providers for those suffering from mental illness. Matos and Wunderly will help define the rights and responsibilities of all involved in this inexact and sometimes thankless field. These are definitely two cases to keep an eye on. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2024 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 © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}