Aug 23, 2024 in News Legal News

Legal News: This One's a Mindbender: Are Psychiatrists Liable if Their Patient Harms Someone?

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently delivered a ruling in a negligence case involving two psychiatrists. It found that there was no duty of care owed by the psychiatrists to these third parties, but it also opened the door for the plaintiff to refine their allegations. 

But does that mean psychiatrists don’t have a duty to warn someone who may be at risk? Our medical malpractice lawyers explain. 

The Facts in McKee vs. Shahid

In February 2019, Bradley McKee fatally stabbed his father, William, leading to a first-degree murder conviction in November 2022. Bradley's mother, Anna McKee (plaintiff), initiated a $1.5 million lawsuit against Dr. Raheel Shahid and Dr. Gunter Lorberg (defendants), the psychiatrists responsible for Bradley's care leading up to the incident. 

The suit alleged negligence, asserting that the psychiatrists failed to provide adequate care and did not adequately warn of Bradley's escalating threat.

In response, the defendants sought to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that the duties of care—competent medical treatment and risk warning—did not exist under Canadian tort law for third parties like the plaintiff and her late husband. Moreover, they argued that the claim was unsupported by sufficient factual detail, challenging the applicability of these legal responsibilities in this context.

Why the Court Didn't Find the Psychiatrists Liable Despite the Murder

The court analyzed whether it was "plain and obvious" that the defendants did not owe a duty of care to prevent harm to Bradley’s parents through his treatment. 

The plaintiff argued that the psychiatrists had a duty to offer competent medical care to Bradley and to warn his parents of the significant risks he posed.

However, the court found that Canadian tort law does not currently recognize such duties towards third parties like the McKees in the context provided. 

It noted that given Bradley McKee's parents were reportedly already aware of the risks he posed, the likelihood of the plaintiff's success on this basis was doubtful. Moreover, the plaintiff's claim was deemed to lack the requisite factual detail needed to substantiate the alleged duties, leading to the motion to strike the claim.

So while the claim was struck, it was for a lack of supporting evidence, giving the plaintiffs the opportunity to re-plead the claim. 

Does That Mean Psychiatrists Never Have a Duty to Warn in Canada?

Psychiatrists in Canada do have a duty to warn third parties of imminent harm. That said, there is no general overarching statutory provision that mandates such disclosure. 

However, the landmark case of Smith vs. Jones introduced a significant exception, recognizing situations where a psychiatrist's duty to maintain confidentiality may be overridden by the need to prevent serious harm.

The Supreme Court outlined a three-part test:

1. Is there a clear risk to an identifiable person or group of persons?
2. Is there a risk of serious bodily harm or death?
3. Is the danger imminent?

Essentially, if a psychiatrist assesses that a patient poses a clear and imminent risk of serious bodily harm or death to identifiable individuals, they may have a duty to breach confidentiality to warn those at risk or appropriate authorities. 

Reach Out to Experienced Medical Malpractice Lawyers in Toronto

If you or someone you know has suffered harm due to psychiatric treatment, it’s vital you get in touch with a medical malpractice lawyer. An experienced team can help receive corrective treatment, minimize the risk of harm to you and your loved ones, and receive the compensation you are entitled to.

Schedule a complimentary consultation with a medical malpractice lawyer in Toronto to discuss your case worry-free.