## Facts

- Lloyd Rusk, an elderly nursing-home resident, suffered from advanced Alzheimer’s disease and had a history of agitation and aggression toward staff during care.
- Carol Creasy worked as a certified nursing assistant at the facility; her duties included caring for Rusk and other Alzheimer’s patients.
- Creasy knew Rusk’s diagnosis and that he could become combative, and she knew he was particularly agitated on the evening of the incident.
- While Creasy and another aide were putting Rusk to bed, Rusk kicked and struck out; Creasy alleged she was kicked several times and injured her back, hip, and knee.
- Creasy sued Rusk for negligence seeking damages for her injuries.

## Issues

1. Whether adults with mental disabilities are generally held to the same duty/standard of care as adults without mental disabilities.
2. Whether, given the caregiver–patient relationship and public policy considerations, an institutionalized Alzheimer’s patient owed a duty of care to a paid professional caregiver for injuries arising from the patient’s condition-driven conduct.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and vacated the Court of Appeals decision.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for Rusk.
- The court held that mentally disabled adults generally have the same duty of care as others.
- The court nonetheless concluded that, in this caregiver–patient context, Rusk owed no duty to Creasy for injuries caused by conduct stemming from the condition she was employed to manage.

## Legal Principles

- As a general rule, an adult’s mental disability does not reduce the duty/standard of care in negligence; the reasonable-person standard applies.
- Duty is a question of law assessed by considering the parties’ relationship, foreseeability of harm, and public policy.
- Even where harm is foreseeable, the relationship and public policy may negate duty.
- A paid professional caregiver may be barred from recovering in negligence from a patient for injuries arising from risks inherent in providing care for the patient’s known condition, with workplace compensation mechanisms serving as the primary remedy.

## Conclusion

The court maintained the ordinary negligence duty rule for mentally disabled adults but recognized a no-duty limitation where a professional caregiver is injured by the very condition-related risks the caregiver is hired and compensated to address, supporting summary judgment for the patient.


Creasy v. Rusk, 730 N.E.2d 659 (Ind. 2000)