Private Non-Profit Mental Health Agencies Beware!

In a recent decision, Probst v. Central Ohio Youth Center, 511 F.Supp. 2d. 862 (S.D. Ohio 2007), a private non-profit mental health agency that performed “lethality-of-harm” (suicide risk) assessments within a juvenile detention facility was found to be a state actor and subject to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 liability.

The Plaintiff in this case was the administrator of her son’s estate. The Plaintiff brought an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against both the juvenile detention facility and the private non-profit mental health agency in regard to the Plaintiff’s son taking his own life. The decedent, who had been at the juvenile detention facility for a few weeks, was given a lethality-of-harm assessment by the agency. He was deemed to be not suicidal. However, 20 hours later the decedent committed suicide.

In order for a private entity to be subject to § 1983 liability, its actions “must so approximate the state action that they may be fairly attributed to the state.” The Court determined that under the “public function test” if a private entity exercises powers which are traditionally exclusively reserved to the state, it is a state actor for § 1983 purposes. The Court determined that access to adequate mental health treatment is part of the package of basic rights to which every prisoner is entitled under the Eighth Amendment. Further, the Court noted that supplying mental health care to inmates is an essential component of providing adequate medical treatment. Ultimately, the Court held that a private provider that performs suicide evaluations at a juvenile detention facility on an as-needed basis was performing a public function and thus was a state actor and subject to § 1983 liability.

The Court further noted that the private provider was not entitled to qualified immunity. The Court asserted that it could be determined that the private provider acted with deliberate indifference in determining the decedent was not suicidal and, therefore, any such argument in regard to qualified immunity was moot.

This case is a clear example that private non-profit providers of medical services or mental health care need to understand their exposure to § 1983 liability when contracted to perform lethality-of-harm assessments for correctional facilities.