Fredericks v. Jonsson - 609 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir. 2010)

Rule:

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-117 provides in general that a mental health professional shall not be liable for damages in any civil action for failure to warn or protect any person against a mental health patient's violent behavior, and any such person shall not be held civilly liable for failure to predict such violent behavior. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-117. A duty does arise, however, where the patient has communicated to the mental health care provider a serious threat of imminent physical violence against a specific person or persons. In that event the mental-health professional can escape liability only by making reasonable and timely efforts to notify any person or persons specifically threatened, as well as notifying an appropriate law enforcement agency or by taking other appropriate action including, but not limited to, hospitalizing the patient.

Facts:

Shortly after probation, Troy Wellington was hospitalized for having suicidal thoughts. The probation department asked Parker, Froyd & Associates, a mental-health-services provider, to perform a full mental-health evaluation of Wellington. Dr. Jonsson was the psychologist assigned to Wellington by Parker, Froyd. According to Dr. Jonsson's evaluation report and Wellington's deposition testimony, Wellington told Dr. Jonsson that he used to have frequent violent fantasies involving members of the Fredericks family, but that he no longer had violent thoughts directed at them. Dr. Jonsson did not convey any warnings to the probation department or the Plaintiffs. Two weeks after the examination, Wellington got drunk and stole a car. He drove to the Plaintiffs’ home and broke a window, apparently in an attempt to break in. The Plaintiffs filed a suit against Dr. Jonsson for failing to warn them of the danger posed by Wellington. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Jonsson, ruling that Colorado's mental-health-professional liability statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-117 (Section 117), protected Dr. Jonsson from the Plaintiffs' claims. The Plaintiffs challenged the decision. 

Issue:

Did Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-117 protect Dr. Jonsson from the Plaintiffs’ claims, thereby justifying the grant of summary judgment in the doctor’s favor? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

Affirming, the court held that Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-117 applied in the circumstances and the statute did not require the psychologist to warn plaintiffs. The court rejected plaintiffs' contention that the Colorado victim-rights statute supported their claim that Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-117 was inapplicable. The court also noted that it was undisputed that the probationer never told the psychologist that he presently intended to harm or threaten plaintiffs. He told her that he used to harbor violent fantasies involving plaintiffs, but that he no longer harbored such fantasies. Because plaintiffs had not pointed to any evidence that the probationer communicated to the psychologist a serious threat of imminent physical violence against a specific person or persons, pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-117, the psychologist was not subject to liability under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-117, and summary judgment was appropriate.