Munstermann v. Alegent Health-Immanuel Medical Center
Nebraska Supreme Court
716 N.W.2d 73 (2006)

- Written by Kate Luck, JD
Facts
Marty Nuzum was treated by Dr. Hudson Hsieh (defendant), a psychiatrist at Alegent Health-Immanuel Medical Center (Alegent) (defendant), for depression and suicidal ideations. Nuzum was checked for, but did not exhibit, homicidal tendencies. One of Hsieh’s treatment notes stated that Nuzum reported having problems with his girlfriend and that Nuzum was thinking of hurting her. Five days after being discharged, Nuzum murdered his girlfriend, Jodi Sue Rowe, when she went to Nuzum’s apartment to get a set of car keys. The representative of Rowe’s estate, Carol Munstermann (plaintiff), sued Alegent and Hsieh for wrongful death. Munstermann argued that Alegent and Hsieh had failed to protect or warn Rowe of Nuzum’s threat. At trial, Hsieh testified that he believed Nuzum’s statement about hurting Rowe referred to emotional injury. Munstermann’s expert witness testified that, in his opinion, Nuzum’s statement likely referred to physical violence, but the witness could not speak to whether Hsieh believed Nuzum to be making a threat. Alegent and Hsieh filed a motion for a directed verdict, arguing that Munstermann failed to present sufficient evidence that Nuzum had communicated a serious threat giving rise to a duty to warn Rowe. The trial court denied the motion. The jury was unable to reach a verdict, and the trial court declared a mistrial. Alegent and Hsieh filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the trial court denied. Alegent and Hsieh appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gerrard, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.