MEDICAL MALPRACTICE-MENTAL HEALTH PROCEDURES ACT-WRITTEN APPLICATION-WILLFUL MISCONDUCT OR GROSS NEGLIGENCE

Matos v. Geisinger Med. Ctr., 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 90 (March 10, 2023) (Stabile, J.) In these interlocutory appeals by permission, which we consolidate under Pa.R.A.P. 513, Appellants, Geisinger Medical Center, Alley Medical Center, and individuals employed by these entities, seek review of the trial court’s refusal to grant them summary judgment in an action brought by Appellee, Stephen Matos, administrator of the estate of Jessica Frederick, deceased, under the Mental Health Procedures Act (“MHPA”), 50 P.S. §§ 7101-7503. The record demonstrates that Westley Wise (“Wise”), who had a record of acute psychiatric issues, submitted himself for voluntary inpatient examination and treatment by presenting himself at Geisinger and then at Alley. Medical personnel at both facilities examined Wise but denied his requests for treatment. Wise murdered his girlfriend, Frederick, the same day that Alley refused treatment. Matos alleges that Geisinger and Alley are liable for gross negligence and/or willful misconduct because they denied Wise’s request for treatment. Relying on Leight v. University of Pittsburgh Physicians, 243 A.3d 126 (Pa. 2020), a decision that addressed the involuntary examination process under the MHPA, Geisinger and Alley contend they are not liable under the MHPA because no written application was ever made to admit Wise for voluntary inpatient treatment. We disagree. The prerequisites to triggering application of the MHPA are not the same for involuntary examination, the process analyzed in Leight, and voluntary inpatient treatment, the process in this case. While the MHPA requires a written application to begin the involuntary examination process, it does not require a written application to begin voluntary inpatient examination and treatment. Thus, facilities such as Geisinger and Alley may be held liable for refusal to provide voluntary inpatient examination and treatment to a person who submits himself for examination and treatment when the refusal constitutes willful misconduct or gross negligence. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.