0284/12 - Maryland Courts

individual. Second, the court stated that the family members had not alleged in their
complaint that the health care providers failed to act in good faith and with reasonable
grounds in deciding not to admit Williams to PRMC involuntarily. The family members ask
us to review whether the immunity statute applies to this case and whether their complaint
failed to state a claim against the health care providers. We conclude that the immunity
statute applies to health care providers who evaluate and decide not to involuntarily admit
an individual. We further determine that a complaint that solely alleges negligence, such as
the complaint in this case, is insufficient to overcome the immunity. We therefore affirm the
circuit court’s dismissal.
FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Although the parties disagree sharply on the legal issues in this case, there is no
dispute about the facts. On April 20, 2009, Williams’ mother brought him to PRMC because
she was concerned about his mental state. She was troubled by Williams’ suicidal thoughts,
his auditory and visual hallucinations, his belief that he was under a curse, his obsessive
behavior, headaches, trouble sleeping, and generally unusual behavior.
At PRMC, Williams was examined and evaluated by, at least, Dr. Murphy and
2
Stroop. During these exams, Williams was alert, verbal, and cooperative in discussing his
symptoms. He admitted that he was having auditory and visual hallucinations and suicidal
2
The family members note in their brief that other members of PRMC performed
psychological evaluations, but they did not name any additional individuals in their
complaint.
2