'Psychology Is Not a Precise Science': Florida Court Rules in Case Involving Parkland Shooter Nikolas Cruz
The opinion preached caution in finding psychologists liable for their patients' behavior.
May 27, 2020 at 05:03 PM
4 minute read
Attempts by the parents of a student killed in the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting to sue shooter Nikolas Cruz's mental health provider deteriorated at the Fourth District Court of Appeal, which ruled Wednesday that the facility owed no legal duty to victims.
"It is difficult to predict any human being's future conduct," the opinion said. "Unlike scientific disciplines firmly grounded in mathematics, psychology is not a precise science, so courts should be cautious about expanding liability beyond the therapist-patient relationship."
Plaintiffs Andrew Pollack and Shara Kaplan sued on behalf of their daughter Meadow Pollack, who died with 16 others in the Valentine's Day attack. They alleged Henderson Behavioral Health Inc. in Lauderdale Lakes should have warned people about Cruz's dangerous behavior and should not have recommended that he transfer from a school for children with behavioral and emotional disorders to public school.
Cruz, who faces the death penalty, is still awaiting trial over the shooting, but the Fourth DCA assumed all allegations against him were true for purposes of the appeal.
The center treated Cruz in sporadic intervals between 2009 and 2016, providing therapy and services for anger issues, and meeting with school officials to discuss his behavior.
Soon after Cruz was suspended from school in 2016, his mother and guidance counselors allegedly called Henderson about aggressive and suicidal behavior. Cruz opted out of therapy after turning 18, according to the opinion, which noted the following year was "a turbulent one" as he was expelled, his mother died and he bought the AR-15 rifle used in the shooting.
But the Fourth DCA found Broward Circuit Judge Patti Englander Henning was right to drop the claims. To find Henderson owed a legal duty to the victims, the ruling said, would "not only undermine effective patient-therapist relationships, but it also would discourage mental health professionals from providing mental health services to students."
The opinion pointed to Florida law, which says mental health providers don't have to warn third parties about potentially dangerous patients because of how unpredictable and subjective mental health cases can be.
|'No solace'
Fourth DCA Judge Robert Gross wrote the ruling, which drew a special concurrence from Judge Jonathan Gerber.
Gerber noted that one related law, Florida Statute Section 456.059, was amended after the Parkland shooting to impose a legal duty on psychiatrists to disclose patient communications to law enforcement about "a specific threat to cause serious bodily injury or death to an identified or a readily available person." But Gerber wrote that doesn't mean psychiatrists have to warn any potential victims.
"Thus, despite the tragedy from which this case arises, it would be improper for this court to issue an after-the-fact decision imposing a legal duty and potential liability upon Henderson's inactions in this case," Gerber said. "While this explanation provides no solace to this tragedy's many surviving victims, or the seventeen families who continue to endure indescribable grief, this is the decision which we must render in this case."
Plaintiffs lawyers Joel Perwin, a solo practitioner in Miami, and David Brill and Joseph J. Rinaldi Jr. of Brill & Rinaldi, The Law Firm in Weston, said they were disappointed with the ruling.
"We submit that Henderson manifestly failed the victims of the MSD shootings, including by recommending against all reason and sense that the killer be mainstreamed into MSD, and that Henderson should be held accountable in a court of law by a Broward County jury," Brill said. "However, we appreciate the undeniably serious and thoughtful analyses in which the court engaged, and we respect the court's decision."
Defense counsel Joshua Walker and Eric J. Netcher, of Walker, Revels, Greninger & Netcher in Orlando, deferred comment to Henderson's CEO, Dr. Steven Ronik.
"We appreciate that the court carefully considered the facts of these cases in determining that Henderson did not violate any duty in the mental health services it provided," Ronik said. "Henderson Behavioral Health will continue to remain focused on helping our communities every day."
|Read the ruling:
More appeals:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRogge Dunn Represents Florida Trucking Firm in Civil RICO Suit Against Worldwide Express
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Recent Decisions Regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- 2The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 3Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 4For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 5As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250