Lois DeVasier, as Administratrix of the Estate of Kenneitha Crady v. William James, M.D.

Summary

The Kentucky Supreme Court considered whether Kentucky Revised Statutes § 202A.400 imposed liability on a psychiatrist for failing to protect a patient’s domestic partner from violence. The Court held that a threat may be communicated indirectly through agents or associates of a mental health professional, but the statute requires an actual threat communicated by words or gestures, rather than merely conduct showing that the patient posed a danger. Because no actual threat was communicated to the psychiatrist or his associates, the Court held that he was entitled to a directed verdict and affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

Holdings

1. The phrase "communicated to a qualified mental health professional" includes threats communicated directly to the professional and threats communicated indirectly through agents or ostensible agents of the professional who have a duty to relay the information.
2. An actual threat requires a current, active expression by words or gestures, verbal or nonverbal, communicating that the patient will commit an act of physical violence; merely appearing to be a threat or posing a danger through prior conduct is insufficient.
3. The evidence did not establish that Cissell communicated an actual threat of physical violence against Crady to Dr. James or his associates; therefore, KRS 202A.400 imposed no duty on James to warn Crady, notify authorities, or take protective precautions, and James was entitled to a directed verdict.
4. When KRS 202A.400 applies, the jury should be instructed on the specific statutory duties rather than the superseded general common-law duty of care.

Questions Presented

1. Whether KRS 202A.400 requires a threat to be communicated directly by the patient to the particular mental-health professional, or whether communication through the professional's agents or associates is sufficient.
2. What constitutes an "actual threat" under KRS 202A.400(1).
3. Whether the evidence established that Cissell communicated an actual threat of physical violence to Dr. James or his associates.
4. Whether the trial court should have instructed the jury on the specific statutory duties under KRS 202A.400 rather than the general common-law duty of care.

Disposition

affirmed