## Facts

- Teresa M. Hausler was murdered by her former boyfriend, Gad Joseph, who was receiving mental health treatment at Philadelphia Center for Human Development (PCHD), owned and operated by related Albert Einstein entities.
- Joseph had diagnoses including post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse problems, and explosive and schizo-affective personality disorders.
- Joseph allegedly had a history of abusing Hausler and others and had often threatened to murder Hausler.
- On the morning of the homicide, Joseph called his counselor, Anthony J. Scuderi, and said he was going to kill Hausler.
- Scuderi conducted an emergency therapy session during which Joseph stated he would kill Hausler if she came to their apartment to retrieve belongings.
- Scuderi recommended hospitalization; Joseph refused and stated he was in control and would not hurt Hausler.
- Later that day, Hausler called Scuderi and said she was coming to the apartment; Scuderi instructed her not to go to the residence but did not state that Joseph had threatened to kill her.
- Hausler went to the residence and was fatally shot.
- Hausler’s estate sued PCHD, affiliated entities, and individual providers for wrongful death and survival claims, alleging negligence in failing to warn and prevent the harm.

## Issues

1. Whether a mental health professional owes a duty to warn a third party of a patient’s threat to harm that third party.
2. If such a duty exists, what is the scope of the duty.
3. Whether judgment on the pleadings was proper on the allegations in this case.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized a limited duty for mental health professionals to warn third parties in defined circumstances.
- The duty arises when a patient communicates a specific and immediate threat of serious bodily injury against a specifically identified or readily identifiable victim.
- The Court held that, on the pleaded facts, the counselor’s instruction to Hausler not to go to the residence was a reasonable warning that discharged the duty as a matter of law.
- The Court affirmed judgment on the pleadings for the defendants.

## Legal Principles

- A special relationship between a mental health professional and a patient can create an affirmative duty to warn third parties in limited situations.
- The duty to warn is triggered only by a patient’s communicated, specific and immediate threat of serious bodily injury directed at a specifically identified or readily identifiable victim.
- The duty is one of reasonable care; it does not require a particular verbal formula or full disclosure of the patient’s statements if the warning reasonably conveys the danger.
- The duty to warn is distinct from a broader duty to protect; recognition of the former does not impose a general obligation to control or confine dangerous patients.
- Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate where, taking the complaint’s allegations as true, the pleadings show that no recovery is possible as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court adopted a narrow duty requiring mental health professionals to take reasonable steps to warn identifiable third parties when a patient communicates a specific, immediate threat of serious bodily injury, and it held the duty was satisfied here because the counselor’s warning not to go to the residence was reasonable under the circumstances.


Emerich v. Phila. Ctr. for Hum. Dev., Inc., 554 Pa. 209, 720 A.2d 1032 (Pa. 1998)