Coleman v. Martinez

247 N.J. 319

254 A.3d 632

Leah COLEMAN, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.Sonia MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

A-3 September Term 2020

084489

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued February 2, 2021

Decided July 15, 2021

Mark A. Lockett argued the cause for appellant (Kiernan Trebach, attorneys; Mark A. Lockett, on the briefs).

Gary D. Ginsberg argued the cause for respondent (Ginsberg & O'Connor, attorneys; Gary D. Ginsberg, Cherry Hill, on the briefs).

JUSTICE SOLOMON delivered the opinion of the Court.

After T.E.¹ suffered a psychotic episode that included auditory hallucinations, the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP) removed her five children and, in October 2013, referred T.E. for counseling to defendant Sonia Martinez, a licensed social worker. Over the following thirteen months, Martinez learned of or was present for at least four episodes of T.E.’s auditory hallucinations. Martinez did not refer T.E. for psychiatric intervention, despite having been instructed to do so. And she contacted DCPP in October 2014 to facilitate unsupervised visits between T.E. and her children.

When plaintiff Leah Coleman, a DCPP employee, wrote to Martinez several weeks later explaining that T.E. had confided to a member of her family that T.E. continued to experience and conceal hallucinations, Martinez responded that she would be meeting with T.E. about a week later. At that meeting, Martinez told T.E. that Martinez had been informed of T.E.’s hallucinations and identified Coleman to T.E. as the source of that information. Believing the disclosure to be detrimental to her goal of regaining custody of her children, T.E. brutally stabbed Coleman at DCPP's offices ten days later, resulting in significant physical and psychological injuries.

Coleman filed a negligence action for personal injuries against Martinez. The trial court granted Martinez's motion for summary judgment, finding that she owed no legal duty to Coleman under the particularized foreseeability standard set forth by this Court in J.S. v. R.T.H., 155 N.J. 330, 714 A.2d 924 (1998). The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that there was adequate evidence to meet the J.S. standard and that, if Coleman could prove that the standard of care required alerting T.E.’s psychiatrist of her hallucinations, it would be fair to impose a duty on Martinez to mitigate that threat.

The Court considers whether, under the facts of this case, the victim of a violent assault by a social worker's patient may bring a negligence claim against the social worker. Because we agree with the Appellate Division that Martinez had a duty to Coleman under the circumstances presented here, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

I.

The factual recitation that follows is derived from the parties’ appellate appendices, with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of Coleman, the nonmovant. See Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 523, 666 A.2d 146 (1995).

A.

Two violent episodes preceded T.E.’s treatment with Martinez. During the first, in July 2007, T.E. attacked her or her mother's landlord -- punching, biting, and stabbing him before chasing him with a knife -- for "being disrespectful." T.E. was thereafter charged with and convicted of aggravated assault and possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose. In the second episode, in December 2011, T.E. attacked a friend, throwing hot oil, stabbing her, and hitting her with a frying pan. T.E. was, again, convicted of aggravated assault.

Just over a year after the second incident, officers responded to reports of T.E. standing in the middle of the street, screaming and clutching one of her children. According to police, T.E. claimed that aliens were after her. She also reported auditory hallucinations commanding self-harm. Officers transported T.E. to Cooper University Hospital where she remained for a week before being transferred to the Camden County Health Services Center.

After a three-week stay, T.E.’s discharge summary from the Camden County Health Services Center referenced T.E.’s prior violent acts and noted that she was required to wear an ankle bracelet.² The summary stated that T.E. acknowledged that she had experienced a psychotic episode and attributed the episode to her trying phencyclidine (PCP) for the first time. T.E. was reportedly calm and cooperative during her stay at the Camden County Health Services Center and displayed no major psychiatric symptoms, aggression, violence, impulsiveness, or suicidal or homicidal ideations. T.E. was diagnosed with "PCP induced psychotic disorder with delusions, and hal[l]ucinations, onset during intoxication." The report noted that T.E. was somewhat defensive and may have downplayed her symptoms, and had been instructed to participate in drug counseling.

Upon her transport to Cooper University Hospital, DCPP removed T.E.’s children; three were placed with T.E.’s mother and two were placed with their paternal grandmother. DCPP referred T.E. to Dr. John O'Reardon, M.D., a psychiatrist, whose August 2013 report noted T.E.’s prior assaults, that she was at one point placed in restraints while at Cooper University Hospital, and that she had cocaine in her system when admitted. T.E. claimed that she used cocaine once and that her statements to hospital staff about drug use were a means of ensuring discharge. Dr. O'Reardon found this claim to be of "doubtful veracity." T.E. also reported to Dr. O'Reardon auditory hallucinations of male voices that were "scary" and threatened to "dissolve her," beginning in the spring of 2012 and increasing in frequency thereafter.³ T.E. further reported believing that individuals could hear each other's thoughts and that she received messages from television and music.

Dr. O'Reardon concluded that T.E.’s reported symptoms satisfied the "criteria for bipolar disorder initially with a manic psychotic episode that later on progressed to a mixed episode with criteria for both a major depressive episode & mania being met at the same time." Dr. O'Reardon noted that T.E. exhibited continued psychotic symptoms in the form of "paranoid ideas" including "[d]elusions that people [were] after her," and recommended supervised visits with her children, completion of substance-abuse treatment, continued individual therapy, referral for psychotropic medication, and, in light of her prior assaults, anger-management classes.

B.

DCPP's contract with Hispanic Family Center (HFC) occasioned T.E.’s referral to Martinez, a mental-health therapist at HFC. Martinez conducted a risk assessment of T.E. in October 2013, finding her to be low risk, with "[n]o history of violence." Martinez later acknowledged at deposition that this designation was inappropriate. In November 2013, a psychiatrist at HFC evaluated T.E. and instructed that she be immediately scheduled with him upon "decompensation."⁴ In a separate assessment later in November 2013, T.E. stated that her goal was to regain custody of her children, an objective she repeated throughout her treatment at HFC.

As is reflected in Martinez's progress notes, she met with T.E. regularly over the next year. At her deposition, Martinez described an objective of her sessions with T.E. to be determining whether T.E. continued to experience hallucinations and, if so, to have her treated with medication. Three progress notes are of particular relevance.

The first progress note, made on April 1, 2014, stated that T.E.’s group counselor "observed [T.E.] in group ‘talking to herself’ and [t]hat during group [T.E.] got up and yelled that ‘I just saw Jesus.’ " The second note, made on July 2, 2014, recounted that Martinez observed T.E. in the HFC waiting area "appear[ing] to be responding to outside stimuli." When confronted, T.E. told Martinez that she was on her cell phone; T.E. was not holding a cell phone or wearing earphones and, when challenged, T.E. claimed to have been wearing small earpieces. Martinez noted that T.E. "[v]ehemently denied ‘hearing voices,’ " became upset that "others [were] ‘lying’ about her (regarding ‘hearing voices’)," and was concerned that those alleged lies could prevent her from regaining custody of her children. Martinez advised T.E. that hallucinations could be managed and did not necessarily prevent her from regaining custody. In the third progress note, made on August 15, 2014, Martinez observed that T.E. seemed "distracted and was engaged [i]n discussion [and] that she appeared to be ‘hearing or trying to listen to something.’ " T.E. claimed that she was thinking and denied auditory hallucinations.

C.

Coleman worked for DCPP as a family services specialist tasked with ensuring the welfare of T.E.’s children. In a letter to Coleman dated October 1, 2014, Martinez stated that T.E. had been compliant during her sessions and with her medication and was ready and able to begin having unsupervised visits with her children with the goal of reunification. According to Martinez, "[a]s sessions ha[d] progressed there ha[d] not been symptoms of psychosis or indications that she [was a] harm to herself or others." At her deposition, Martinez acknowledged the inaccuracy of representing that T.E. did not exhibit psychotic symptoms in light of what she and the group counselor had seen.

On October 28, 2014, Coleman emailed Martinez that T.E. "ha[d] shared with a family member that she hear[d] commanding voices, to which she fe[lt] an obligation to act on their commands." Coleman further wrote that T.E. told the family member that she had withheld that information from Martinez and her psychiatrist. Coleman testified at deposition that she emailed Martinez because, as T.E.’s therapist, it was Martinez's responsibility to handle those issues. She "assumed it was understood" that the contents of the email would not be shared with T.E. because Martinez knew of the severity of T.E.’s mental-health issues and "it [was] just not professional to do...