Allegations that a U.S. Naval Hospital allowed a mentally unstable patient to escape while he was out for a stroll are claims for medical malpractice, not ordinarily negligence, a federal judge has ruled.
The runaway patient commandeered a fire truck and caused a wreck that killed a pedestrian. The judge granted the federal government’s motion to toss out a lawsuit brought by the victim’s estate because it failed to comply with South Carolina’s special pleading requirements for medical malpractice cases.
In February 2012, Kalvin Hunt, a Marine on involuntary leave, went to the Beaufort Naval Hospital with Edward Ray, an employee with the local Office of Veterans’ Affairs. After Hunt had been seen by three nurses, a technician and two doctors, a decision was made to admit Hunt to a nearby hospital because the Naval Hospital did not provide in-patient mental health treatment. As Naval Hospital staff was confirming that the neighboring hospital had an available bed, Ray asked if he and Hunt could go outside for some fresh air.
One of nurses approved the request, but once they got outside, Hunt removed some items of clothing and ran towards the front gate. A security guard saw Hunt running but did not stop him. Tragically, a local fire department was responding to an emergency call at a nearby apartment complex, and Hunt got into a still-running and unattended fire truck and began driving it at high speed, resulting in the fatality.
The decedent’s estate sued the U.S. government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The estate contended in its complaint that it was not alleging acts of medical negligence, but in a May 24 opinion, Judge David Norton disagreed, holding that claim rested “on the specialized knowledge that medical professionals practicing mental health care possess about screening patients for serious mental health issues and the need for implementing precautionary measures” that may be guided by them.
Norton wrote that while not every tort suit brought against a medical provider is necessarily a claim from medical malpractice, in this case Hunt had begun receiving medical care from multiple medical professionals by the time he ran off, putting the facts “squarely” within a medical malpractice claim.
“If it looks like a malpractice case, swims like a malpractice case, and quacks like a malpractice case—despite artful pleading by the plaintiff—it is probably a malpractice case,” Norton wrote.
As an alternative basis for granting summary judgment, Norton held that South Carolina law does not generally allow third parties who are harmed by a patient to sue the medical care providers for negligence, except for limited exceptions that weren’t met in this case.
Anne Kearse, Thomas Hoyle and William Swett of Motley Rice in Mount Pleasant represented the victim’s estate. A representative for Motley Rice said that the attorneys were traveling and could not be made available for a call.
Lee Ellis Berlinsky of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Charleston represented the hospital.
The 14-page decision is Delaney v. United States (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-142-17). An opinion digest is available online at sclawyersweekly.com.
Follow David Donovan on Twitter @SCLWDonovan