Jeremy Pompeneo was a recovering methamphetamine addict who sought counseling from the Verde Valley Guidance Clinic (VVGC) on a sporadic basis in 2005 and 2006. He was diagnosed with psychosis, psychotic disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and borderline personality disorder. He had also sought inpatient care at the Mingus Clinic for psychotic episodes induced by amphetamines that had been prescribed by personnel at VVGC.
On October 17, 2006, six days after being prescribed a form of amphetamine, Pompeneo told the case manager at VVGC that he did not have any acute homicidal or suicidal ideations, plans, or intent, but that he “gets great pleasure out of thinking of killing or hurting his [significant other] and her ex-boyfriend.” Later that day, Pompeneo stabbed his girlfriend to death. He then unsuccessfully attempted suicide by ingesting a large quantity of medication. Pompeneo was indicted for first degree murder. He pled guilty to the charge. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Pompeneo filed a medical malpractice suit against VVGC, alleging that it had failed to (1) prescribe appropriate medication for him; (2) obtain his prior medical records; (3) admit him to the hospital for treatment; and (4) warn others about his mental state. Pompeneo sought damages for lost wages, loss of personal freedom, loss of civil rights, pain and suffering, severe emotional distress, and mental anguish. The case was consolidated with a separate action by the victim's parents filed against VVGC, but the victim's parents dismissed their claim prior to trial. The trial court granted summary judgment for VVGC and this appeal was taken.
The Arizona Court of Appeals held that the claim for damages for the suicide claim was properly dismissed, largely because Pompeneo had failed to prove his case. He presented no facts to show that his suicide attempt was other than a volitional or intentional act on his part.
The court of appeals also held that the claim for damages for the homicidal act was also properly dismissed. The court held that VVGC had prescribed the medication for Pompeneo, but that he presented no evidence to show that he was under the influence of the medication at the time he killed his girlfriend. Rather, the record showed that, when he pled guilty, he told the court that he and his girlfriend had gotten into an argument and he stabbed her. When asked if he did this with premeditation, he replied, “Yes, sir.” Because he admitted that he acted intentionally, the claim was properly dismissed. It is not clear whether this case could have been successful had it been prosecuted more effectively. The case was thrown out largely because Pompeneo failed to prove his case, many aspects of which would have been easy to establish (e.g., he could have proven through affidavit or deposition that he had taken the medication and was under its influence when he killed his girlfriend). It was also thrown out because the court considered that Pompeneo's intentional conduct interrupted the chain of causation allegedly started by VVGC's actions. Pompeneo's actions superseded any possible negligence on the part of VVGC. It may have been more difficult to prove whether VVGC was negligent, and it was not clear from this decision whether Pompeneo offered any expert proof on this issue. Expert testimony is normally required in a medical malpractice action to prove the breach of duty, causation, injury, and damages.
Many states have enacted “slayer statutes” to prevent people from profiting from their crimes. It is not clear whether these laws would apply to this case. Additionally, claims based on behavioral issues are frowned upon in the law. This is one reason why a plea of “not guilty by reason of insanity” is often a last ditch effort—they are notoriously difficult to win.
Even though it ended favorably for the defense, this case underscores the caution that must be taken with patients with serious mental illness. The best defense for cases like this is to be able to show due diligence: A good and thorough assessment was done, all conclusions were carefully reached, appropriate interventions were implemented, and all aspects of the care and treatment plan were carefully and completely documented. While it is difficult to prevent suicidal or homicidal behavior or predict it with absolute certainty, it may be possible to prevent liability through the exercise of due care in each and every case.
Pompeneo v. Verde Valley Guidance Clinic, 249 P. 3d 1112 (Ct. App. Ariz. 2011)
John C. West, J.D., M.H.A., is a senior health care consultant with Global Loss Prevention, Inc., a Chartis company. This column constitutes general advice not legal advice. Readers should consult with counsel for legal concerns. For questions or comments contact .