Behavioral Health Providers (virtual and in-person): Court Decision – You Have a Duty to Clients Discharged 48 Days Ago (maybe longer?)
Background
A recent appellate court decision has underscored the critical importance of proper discharge planning in behavioral health treatment facilities. The Third District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed a summary judgment in favor of The Village South, Inc., a behavioral health treatment facility, in a wrongful death lawsuit.[1] The case involved the discharge of Anthony Burley, who died from a drug overdose 48 days after being discharged from the facility. The Court found that Village South had a duty to Burley, and that the lower-court must consider whether it breached its duty of care by failing to provide adequate post-discharge support and referrals resulting in his death.[2]
Key Takeaways
Ongoing Duty of Care: The Court emphasized that behavioral health treatment facilities have a duty to ensure proper discharge planning, including making appropriate referrals and arranging post-discharge care.[3] This duty extends beyond the client's departure from the facility.
To our virtual care clients: recall that you likely have the same (or similar) duties of care as in-person care even though the method of delivery services different.[4]
Importance of Proper Discharge Planning: Facilities must assist clients in securing appropriate post-discharge services.[5] Failure to do so can lead to tragic outcomes and legal consequences.
Case Details: Anthony Burley, who had a history of substance use disorder, was discharged from The Village South to a homeless shelter with minimal support. He was given a two-week supply of Suboxone and a list of doctors to seek continued care from but no further assistance. He died from a drug overdose 48 days later.[6]
What Happened in Court?
Family's Argument: Anthony Burley's family argued that The Village South failed to provide a proper discharge plan required under law and in the facility’s own policies, which should have included continued treatment and proper management of his medication.[7]
Facility's Defense: The Village South contended that their responsibility ended once Anthony was discharged, believing they had met their obligations by notifying relevant authorities, providing a bridging prescription for two weeks, and dropping him off at a shelter.[8]
Court's Findings:
Duties Under the Law: The Court ruled that The Village South did have a legal duty to assist Mr. Burley in securing more appropriate services responsive to his needs after discharge, including, at a minimum, referring him back to the Village South’s outpatient program for ongoing medication management.[9]
Remanded: Ultimately, the Court found that Village South's failure to uphold regulatory and factual obligations created enough of a question of fact that the lower-court must hear whether these duties were breached, and if so, whether this proximately caused Burley's death.[10] The Court stopped short of opining on those issues.[11] This Order is still not yet final, pending timely motion for rehearing.[12] If published, it will be a significant precedent in the behavioral health treatment industry in Florida and persuasive in similar legal proceedings across the country as Florida is often leading the national charge on these matters.
Conclusion:
The Court's decision makes it clear: behavioral health operators must ensure comprehensive discharge planning and adequate links to post-discharge care. This includes making appropriate referrals and managing ongoing treatment needs where appropriate. Failing to do so may have serious health and legal consequences.
Action Steps for Healthcare Operators:
Staff Case Management Functions Adequately: Ensure that case management is well-staffed, as this is crucial for proper discharge planning.
Review and Update Discharge Planning Procedures: Align procedures with the Court's expectations, ensuring clients have defined follow-up appointments and continued access to necessary medications, and follow the policies and procedures.
Provide Clear Referrals: Ensure clients are referred to appropriate post-discharge services and that these referrals are communicated and documented appropriately.
Train Staff: Emphasize the importance of comprehensive discharge planning as a component of client safety—including for the patients who are discharged for breaking protocol. Create a culture of compliance with these rules.
Proactive action in these areas will ultimately cost very little and will mitigate significant risks. Adhering to legal guidance as it is evolving is one of the best ways to address inherent and systematic risk of operating in the healthcare industry.
Ben Hefflinger has served as both in-house and outside counsel to publicly traded and private global healthcare organizations operating across behavioral health, digital health, interoperability, and emerging markets. With a deep understanding of regulatory frameworks and operational risk, he champions process-driven risk mitigation as a tool for enhancing both compliance and profitability. Ben works closely with national providers to turn enforcement trends into practical improvements—encouraging regular review, revision, and education to build a culture of compliance that supports sustainable growth.
Supporting Files
This publication and/or any linked publications herein do not constitute legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinions on specific facts or matters and, accordingly, the author(s) and PierFerd assume no liability whatsoever in connection with its use. Pursuant to applicable rules of professional conduct, this publication may constitute Attorney Advertising. © 2025 Pierson Ferdinand LLP.
[1] Burley v. The Village South, Inc., No. 3D23-0258, slip op. 1 at 18 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Apr. 2 2, 2025).
[2] Id.
[3] Id. at 2-3.
[4] See Fla. Stat. 456.47(2)(a)- “A telehealth provider has the duty to practice in a manner consistent with his or her scope of practice and the prevailing professional standard of practice for a health care professional who provides in-person health care services to patients in this state.”
[5] Id. at 18.
[6] Id. at 3-7.
[7] Id. at 2.
[8] Id. at 2-3.
[9] Id. at 18.
[10] Id. at 1, 18.
[11] Id. at 18. “Whether Village South breached these duties, and whether such breach proximately caused the Decedent’s death, are issues for the finder of fact, and we express no opinion on those issues.”
[12] Id. at 1.
