On September 24, 2021, the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Florida filed an opinion in Lifestream Behavioral Center, Inc. v. Allerton, 327 So. 3d 914 (5th DCA 2021) that helped to clarify what constitutes medical malpractice in Florida. More specifically, the Lifestream Behavioral Center lawsuit helped to clarify what does not constitute medical malpractice in Florida. The court in Lifestream Behavioral held that the allegations within the complaint – namely behavioral health technicians missing observation checks – were allegations of general negligence, not medical malpractice.
Our firm has handled cases against mental health facilities and behavioral treatment facilities, and we've gotten national attention for our efforts. We know how to handle these cases and hold facilities accountable for failing to prevent suicide. We know how to get answers.
Give us a call at 321-LAWSUIT for a free consultation. We can help you better understand your rights and how to bring a successful claim. A call is risk-free, and you don't pay us anything unless we win money for you and your family.
What Happened in the Lifestream Behavioral Case?
As we so often see in these cases against mental health facilities, the staff failed to properly check on a young man, and he committed suicide. He was found hanging from his bathroom door at around 6:20 p.m. on December 15, 2019. Notably, he died the same day of his Baker Act into the facility.
The young man had entered Lifestream Behavioral Center in Leesburg, Florida on December 15, 2019. He was suffering from mental illness, and the facility deemed him a suicide risk. Accordingly, the facility decided that he should be under “constant visual observation” to make sure he didn’t harm himself.
The lawsuit alleges that staff at Lifestream was supposed to lock and unlock the bathroom door, as needed. In other words, the young man was not supposed to have unsupervised access to the unlocked bathroom. However, the staff failed to ensure the door was locked, and the young man thus had unsupervised access to the bathroom.
The very same night the young man was admitted to Lifestream Behavioral Center, the night of December 15, 2019, he was found dead in his room, hanging from the bathroom door. The police investigated the death and confirmed that the behavioral technicians responsible for keeping an eye on the young man had failed to supervise him.
Not surprisingly, the lawsuit also alleges that the observation records had been falsified. The observation chart contained checks that had not been performed. This is a common occurrence in these types of cases, as these types of facilities often prefer cover-up and falsification to transparency and accountability.
The Lawsuit Against Lifestream Behavioral Center
The young man’s father was appointed personal representative of his estate and brought a lawsuit against Lifestream Behavioral Center for wrongful death. The complaint was filed on June 3, 2020.
The complaint specifically alleged that “non-medical provider employees,” namely behavioral technicians acted negligently in failing to properly monitor the young man and failing to prevent him from committing suicide. The complaint itself did not allege any negligence on the part of medical providers, only behavioral technicians.
The Trial Court’s Decision in The Lifestream Behavioral Center Lawsuit: This is Not Medical Malpractice
On June 29, 2020, the defense filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to follow Florida Statute 766’s medical malpractice pre-suit requirements. The defense’s reasoning was that the case should be subject to the medical malpractice laws in Florida because
- A doctor assessed the young man;
- Lifestream Behavioral Center is licensed under Chapter 395 of Florida Statute (general hospital), rather than Chapter 394 (psychiatric hospitals);
- Nurses were to monitor and evaluate the deceased young man; and
- The allegations of negligence are “predicated on the medical care and treatment rendered to the decedent.”
The plaintiff’s father filed a response in October 2020, clarifying that the complaint did not allege negligence on the part of any medical provider. Namely, the complaint alleged negligence on the part of a behavioral technician, and that actions taken or not taken by the behavioral technician did not require “medical skill or judgment.”
The court issued an order on March 11, 2021, denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss on the basis that the complaint itself sounded in ordinary negligence. When analyzing the complaint itself or, in legal terms, the “4 corners of the complaint,” nothing about the allegations sounded in medical negligence or medical malpractice. Accordingly, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, effectively allowing the case to proceed on ordinary negligence grounds.
The Appeal and Confirmation that the Allegations of Negligence Were Ordinary Negligence
The defendant appealed the trial court’s decision to the 5th District Court of Appeals in Florida. On September 24, 2021, the appellate court issued an opinion. The appellate court held that “the Estate’s complaint sounds in general negligence rather than medical malpractice,” emphasizing that “Any doubt as to whether a claim is for ordinary negligence or medical malpractice should be generally resolved in favor of the claimant.”
In other words, the appellate court confirmed that the complaint itself governs, and the complaint contained no allegations of medical malpractice. Accordingly, the case was a case of ordinary negligence, and the medical malpractice requirements in Chapter 766 of the Florida Statutes did not apply.
Why Does it Matter if the Case is Medical Malpractice or Ordinary Negligence?
The significance of this brave and just opinion cannot be overstated. If the court had found that the allegations in the Lifestream Behavioral case constituted medical malpractice, there would be no justice for the father who lost his little boy.
Florida has a notorious rule, which is often called the “Free Kill Rule.” Here, in the Lifestream Behavioral case, the young man who died was 32 years old. He didn’t have a spouse or children. His father brought the lawsuit on his behalf as the personal representative of his estate.
Under the Free Kill Rule, since the young man was over 25 and didn’t have a spouse or children, the parent would not be able to seek non-economic damages. In other words, the value of the case would be the cost of the young man’s funeral.
Since it was ordinary negligence, the Free Kill Rule didn’t prevent the parent from seeking non-economic damages. Thus the parent could seek compensation for things like pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of companionship.
These facilities are completely focused on the bottom line. Money guides all their decisions. Accordingly, if they could get away with not having to pay for the death of a young man at their facility, there would be no accountability.
Without financial consequences and accountability, there is nothing to punish the behavior that led to the young man’s death. Without accountability, more young people die.
Do You Need a Preventable Suicide Lawyer to Help You Hold a Behavioral Treatment Facility Accountable?
These cases are heartbreaking, but they tend to follow a pattern. They are often remarkably similar to the Lifestream Behavioral Center lawsuit. We have handled many of these cases, and we have held these facilities accountable, even when they did everything they could to escape accountability.
We have fought their motions to dismiss, and we have won. We have repeatedly gotten court orders that cases involving behavioral technicians and psychiatric technicians missing observation checks do not constitute medical malpractice in Florida.
In nearly every case, the observation records are incomplete and/or falsified. These facilities almost always have surveillance footage of the incident and fight tooth and nail to keep you from seeing it. However, we know how to file a lawsuit and use the court to force them to turn over the footage or explain why they “lost” it or destroyed it.
Here’s why you should give us a call and at least talk about the case with us:
- You pay us nothing unless we win the case and get money for you.
- You will talk to a lawyer for your free legal consultation and a lawyer will evaluate your case, not a call center person.
- We don’t charge people interest on case costs. We focus on spending money that needs to be spent on the case in order to get the best result. We don’t use case costs and credit card interest rates to line our pockets.
- You get your lawyer’s cell phone number, and you get your own text number. You will always have direct access to a lawyer. We don’t put customer service people between you and your attorney.
- Every time we hold these facilities accountable, the industry has to pay attention, and private equity has to reconsider whether cutting corners is more profitable than actually doing the right thing and taking care of these people.
- Our firm is a family. We care about each other, and we care about our clients. You’ll know what we mean by this when you call us and work with us. We can prove it.
Call us anytime at 321-LAWSUIT to schedule your free legal consultation. We can talk with you and help you understand the road that lies ahead and the steps we need to take to hold the facility accountable.
We are passionate about these cases, and we know we can make a difference in the world and save some of these people’s lives. We just need you to be bold and courageous and make the call. Whenever you need us, just give us a call.