Shin v Massachusetts Institution of Technology 19 Mass

Shin v. Massachusetts Institution of Technology 19 Mass. L. Rep. 570 (2005) Superior Court of Massachusetts Justice Christine M. Mc. Evoy June 27, 2005

Facts n n Elizabeth Shin began attending MIT as a freshman in September 1998; she received information on its Medical Services Department and health services available prior to beginning classes. She had been a cutter while in high school. Important People: n n Housemaster: Davis-Millis Psychiatrists: Girard, Egler, Vassen, Reisen, Gottfried, Cunningham, Van Niel, Reich Counseling & Support Services Dean: Mtembu, Henderson Social Worker: Temelini

Facts n Freshman Year: n n n -Jan hospitalized for overdose of Tylenol with codeine; treated by Girard. -Mar Mtembu learned she told her bf she was suicidal; Mtembu told Girard -Apr had several sessions with Girard, who instructed Elizabeth to return for therapy after summer.

Facts n Sophomore Year: n n n n -Oct 6, E told Mtembu she was suicidal; treated by Egler. -Oct 12 E told Girard said she was doing better. -Nov 9 E told Henderson she was cutting; he scheduled a session and followed up. -Dec 6 Prof emailed Henderson that she bought sleeping pills with suicidal intent, but decided not to. -Mar 18 E sent to Mental Health after reported cutting; treated by Reisen, who kept her for observation overnight. -Mar 19 E was released by Reisen. -Mar 23 E began treatment with Cunningham. -Mar 29 Henderson counseled her after more concerns that she may harm herself.

Facts n n n n Sophomore Year continued -Mar 30 Cunningham diagnosed her as severely depressed. -Apr 3 Henderson postponed an exam, per her request. -Apr 4 E went for a walk-in; treated by Gottfried and seen by Temelini later that day. -Apr 11 intake appointment scheduled by Cunningham and Temelini, who discussed out-patient treatment option. -Apr 6 E met with Cunningham twice. -Apr 6 Henderson notified of 2 profs’ concerns about her mental state and cutting. -Apr 8 police took her to Mental Health after threatening to kill herself with a knife; Van Niel assessed her on the phone and determined she “was not acutely suicidal”.

Facts n n n n n Night of Suicide: Apr 10 -12: 30 am E asked students to erase comp files after she killed herself; Van Niel asked Davis-Millis to check on her. -6: 30 am all was quiet when Davis-Millis checked. -9: 45 am E called Davis-Millis per D-Ms’ request in an email; Davis-Millis told Henderson of a suicidal comment. -11: 00 am Henderson attended “deans and psychs” meeting; discussed her case with Reich, Girard, Gottfried, etc. -12: 00 pm Reich left her a message about an appointment he scheduled for her at the out-patient treatment center. -9: 00 pm police found her engulfed in flames in her room; she was hospitalized with 3 rd degree burns to 65% of body. -Apr 14 E’s parents terminated life support due to irreversible neurological brain damage. -Apr 18 E’s cause of death determined as “self-inflicted thermal burns”.

Key Issues n Breach of Contract n Negligence n Duty of Care

Claims against: MIT Contract n n n Did MIT breach the contract offered to all students in MIT’s brochure? Finding: Indifferent Reasoning: the “contractual” brochure provided prior to attending MIT was too vaguely worded to be considered a binding contract (Guckenberger and Morris).

Claims against: MIT Contract n Did MIT induce Elizabeth’s reliance? n Finding: Indifferent n Reasoning: same as previous claim, too vague to be able to make a claim (Guckenberger and Morris).

Claims against: MIT Contract n n n Was MIT negligent in keeping the involved parties informed? Finding: No Reasoning: MIT fulfilled informed duty to Elizabeth, and contractually had no further responsibility to keep the Shins as informed (Guckenberger).

Claims against: MIT Contract n n n Was MIT financially benefiting from the mental health services provided? Finding: No Reasoning: MIT, as a charitable corporation, was not engaged in “trade or commerce, ” because their medical services are “purely incidental to the university’s education mission” (Linkage Corp. , Trustees of Boson Univ. and Thornton).

Claims against: Medical Professionals n n n Were the medical professionals grossly negligent in coordinating/providing care? Finding: Yes Reasoning: defendants failed to coordinate care in a manner that secured her short-term safety “by not formulating and enacting an immediate plan to respond to Elizabeth’s escalating threats to commit suicide” (Altman).

Claims against: Medical Professionals n n n Did the medical professionals financially benefit from providing care? Finding: No Reasoning: there was no “entrepreneurial or business” goals on the MIT Medical Professionals’ behalf (Darviris and Squeri).

Claims against: Medical Professionals n n n Did the Shins experience negligent infliction of emotional distress? Finding: No Reasoning: “Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate substantial physical harm, ” especially since the Shins never “sought medical attention to resolve any emotional distress they experienced” (Sullivan, Anderson, Ferriter, Stockdale, and Cohen).

Claims against: Medical Professionals n Did Dr. Girard have duty of care? n Finding: Yes n Reasoning: Even though Girard hadn’t personally treated her since Oct 12, 1999, since she was part of the treatment conversation at the “deans and psychs” meeting, she still had a physician-patient relationship (Doherty).

Claims against: Administrators n n n Did Henderson and Davis-Millis fail to uphold duty of reasonable care? (tort) Finding: Yes Reasoning: Henderson and Davis-Millis’s consistent notification and care of Elizabeth gave them a “special relationship” with her since they “could reasonably foresee that Elizabeth would hurt herself without proper supervision, ” thus making their inadequate active involvement negligent on their

Claims against: Administrators n n n Were Henderson and Davis-Millis grossly negligent in securing her safety? Finding: Yes Reasoning: The plaintiffs proved the “treatment team” was fully aware of her escalating threats, so “by not formulating and enacting an immediate plan to respond to Elizabeth’s suicide plan” left them grossly negligent.

Claims against: Administrators n n n Did administrators breach their duty, resulting in a negligent/wrongful death? Finding: Yes Reasoning: “MIT Administrators breached their duty and proximately caused Elizabeth’s death” (Mullins).

Claims against: Administrators n n n Did Elizabeth experience conscious pain & suffering? Finding: Yes Reasoning: In the ambulance ride, she “showed signs of a non-verbal level of consciousness” (Baldassare).

Claims against: Administrators n n n Did Elizabeth experience negligent infliction of emotional distress? Finding: Indifferent Reasoning: Plaintiffs failed to provide evidence to support (Sullivan, Anderson, Ferriter, Stockdale, and Cohen).

Claims against: Administrators n n n Were administrators negligently misrepresentative? Finding: No Reasoning: “Any relationship between the MIT Administrators and the Plaintiffs did not occur in the context of a ‘business transaction’ because any representations about MIT’s medical services were ‘purely incidental’ to MIT’s ‘educational mission’” (Golber, Trustees of Boston Univ. , Linkage Corp. ,

Outcome n MIT settled out of court with the Shins for undisclosed terms. Implications for Higher Ed n WHY did MIT decide to settle?