Judge tosses negligence claims against US government over combat veteran killing four people at treatment home

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — A federal judge tossed claims against the federal government from the family members of two therapists who were killed in 2018 at a Yountville, California, treatment program by a combat veteran suffering from severe mental health issues.

Albert Wong shot and killed four people before killing himself at The Pathway House in Yountville in March 2018. The family members of therapists Jennifer Golick and Christine Loeber sued in federal court; the state of California settled with all victims for $51 million in 2022.

The plaintiffs claimed the Department of Veterans Affairs knew about Wong’s mental health issues because he told VA staff at the San Francisco Medical Center in December 2017 that he owned guns and expressed murderous thoughts about his treatment providers at the Pathway House — thus, the VA was negligent when it didn’t warn The Pathway House workers about Wong.

The United States moved to dismiss, arguing sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act’s discretionary function and misrepresentation exceptions.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler sided with the United States, writing in an eight-page opinion that the plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the discretionary function exception and misrepresentation exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act and that federal law preempts the state law claims.

The discretionary function exception is a provision in the Federal Tort Claims Act that bars lawsuits against the U.S. government when the alleged harm results from a federal employee’s discretionary act — that is, an act involving judgment or policy decisions.

“The court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because the FTCA’s discretionary-function and misrepresentation exceptions apply: VA employees had discretion not to report the alleged threats, and a negligent failure to report or warn is barred by the misrepresentation exception, Beeler wrote. “The duecare exception does not apply because the federal scheme does not mandate a specific action. Federal law also preempts the state mandatory reporting requirements.”

Beeler, in the order issued late Friday, noted that the discretionary function exception bars claims involving judgment subject to policy analysis and cited Veterans Health Administration Directive 1605.01, which states that VA employees “may” disclose a patient’s threats.

“Because the VHA employees ‘may,’ but are not required to, report a threat, their actions involve judgment,” Beeler wrote.

Beeler said that none of the other, broader regulations cited by the plaintiffs mandated disclosing threats, leaving Directive 1605.01 as the controlling policy.

Beeler also tossed misrepresentation claims brought forth under the Federal Tort Claims Act and cited the same discretionary function exception.

“This exception applies because the plaintiffs’ claims hinge on the VA’s failure to communicate Mr. Wong’s threats. The core issue — or gravamen — is whether the government negligently withheld information (as opposed to a separate duty such as physical protection). This includes failure-to-warn claims causing personal injury,” Beeler wrote.

The dismissal is with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs will not have an opportunity to amend their complaint.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs and the United States government did not immediately respond to requests for comment.