Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial ended in a mistrial, but the doctors who treated her are fighting to have a wrongful-death lawsuit filed by her former husband thrown out.
Attorneys appeared Wednesday in Norfolk Superior Court in Massachusetts to argue whether Patrick Clancy’s lawsuit should be dismissed before the case moves any further. The hearing included arguments over what Lindsay’s medical providers knew about her deteriorating mental health and whether they could have anticipated the tragic deaths of her children.
Patrick Clancy was not present in the Massachusetts courtroom.
Clancy filed the lawsuit in January on behalf of himself and the estates of Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, who died after Lindsay brutally strangled them inside the family’s Duxbury home on Jan. 24, 2023. Cora and Dawson died that day, while Callan died three days later.
The lawsuit names psychiatrist Dr. Jennifer Tufts, psychiatric nurse practitioner Rebecca Jollotta, Aster Mental Health Inc. and South Shore Health System Inc. It accuses the providers of improperly prescribing multiple medications, failing to coordinate Lindsay’s care and overlooking warning signs as her mental health deteriorated.
The defendants deny wrongdoing and argue that Massachusetts law did not require them to protect the children under the circumstances alleged.
During Wednesday’s hearing, attorney Timothy Sweetland, representing Jollotta and South Shore Health, argued that Lindsay never explicitly told her providers she intended to kill or seriously injure her children, a requirement the defense maintains must be met before mental health professionals can be held responsible for failing to protect others from a patient’s violent behavior.
The defense acknowledged the devastating nature of the case but insisted that the tragedy could not reasonably have been anticipated.
“There’s no foreseeability. Everybody was shocked at this outcome and it is undeniably tragic,” attorney Mary Alys Azzarito, representing Tufts and Aster Mental Health, told the court.
Sweetland also argued that Massachusetts lawmakers specifically limited the circumstances under which mental health professionals can be held liable for their patients’ violent actions.
But Patrick’s attorney, Howard Cooper, strongly rejected the defense’s interpretation of the law, accusing the providers’ lawyers of attempting to argue the merits of the case before Patrick has had an opportunity to gather evidence.
“What you just heard is a closing argument, Your Honor, completely inappropriate for a motion to dismiss at this stage,” Cooper told Judge Michael Doolin.
Cooper argued that Patrick’s lawsuit is not simply about whether the providers should have warned someone that Lindsay might harm her children. Instead, he said, it concerns their alleged failure to properly treat her psychiatric condition.
“What is alleged is negligence,” Cooper said, pointing to at least eight allegations of improper medical care that he contends contributed to the killings.
He accused the providers of failing to communicate with one another, prescribing medications without adequate coordination and failing to recognize the seriousness of Lindsay’s reported symptoms.
Cooper also alleged that Tufts never examined Lindsay in person and instead conducted appointments by video, some lasting approximately 17 minutes.
“The complete mismanagement of Lindsay Clancy’s mental healthcare became the substantial cause of her murdering her three children,” Cooper argued.
Azzarito pushed back on that conclusion, saying Patrick’s complaint relies heavily on allegations made upon information and belief rather than established evidence that Lindsay warned her providers she might harm her children.
She pointed out that Lindsay had reportedly discussed disturbing thoughts with Patrick and her mother but argued there was no clear evidence that she had communicated an explicit threat to the medical professionals.
Cooper countered that Patrick should not be expected to prove those allegations before the case has advanced to the stage where witnesses can be questioned and evidence gathered.
He also made a big claim about Lindsay herself.
Cooper said he expects Lindsay, once her Fifth Amendment issues are resolved, to testify that she shared homicidal thoughts with the providers and expressed fears that something terrible might happen to her children.
“We have alleged in good faith in this case … that we believe that Lindsay Clancy, once her Fifth Amendment issues are resolved, one way or the other, will testify that she told these defendants explicitly that she had homicidal ideation,” Cooper said.
Late Wednesday evening, Lindsay’s attorney, Kevin Reddington issued a statement, pushing back on the allegations: “It has come to my attention that counsel for Patrick Clancy represented to the court in his civil case that my client, Lindsay Clancy, will testify about statements she made to her healthcare providers. Lindsay Clancy never told any of her healthcare providers that she harbored homicidal ideation toward her children. She never indicated that she intended to testify in Mr. Clancy’s lawsuit, and no one acting for her ever represented that she would. Mr. Clancy’s counsel does not speak for Lindsay Clancy.”
Cooper also pointed to treatment notes documenting Lindsay’s reported anxiety, suicidal thoughts, fears about her children and concerns that something awful might happen. He argued that providers had reason to recognize the potential danger and that their alleged failure to properly treat her condition contributed to the deaths.
Azzarito maintained that the treatment records did not establish an explicit threat against the children and that the killings were not reasonably foreseeable.
At the conclusion of Wednesday’s hearing, Doolin took the matter under advisement. He did not immediately rule on whether Patrick’s lawsuit could proceed. The hearing follows prior weeks of testimony in Lindsay’s murder trial, where jurors heard different accounts of her mental state and the medical treatment she received before the killings.
Her defense argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and was not criminally responsible for the deaths. Prosecutors maintained that she understood her actions.
After seven days of deliberations, the jury remained deadlocked, reportedly split 11-1 in favor of finding Lindsay not guilty by reason of insanity. Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial Sept. 4.
As Los Angeles Magazine previously reported, Patrick alleges that the providers’ handling of Lindsay’s medications and psychiatric symptoms contributed to the deaths of their children. His lawsuit also seeks damages for the loss of their companionship and their alleged conscious pain and suffering.
Lindsay has filed her own civil lawsuit against several medical providers, alleging that their treatment contributed to a severe psychiatric breakdown and left her with lasting physical and psychological injuries.
LA Mag also examined allegations in Lindsay’s separate lawsuit, including claims that providers failed to recognize possible bipolar disorder and the effects of changing psychiatric medications. Wednesday’s hearing did not determine whether the providers committed malpractice or caused the children’s deaths. Doolin must decide whether Patrick’s allegations are legally sufficient to allow his wrongful-death claims to proceed.
Meanwhile, Lindsay Clancy’s attorneys are preparing for another courtroom showdown Monday, Nov. 2, when they will argue that putting her on trial again would violate her constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
Her defense contends that Judge William Sullivan should have investigated concerns about a holdout juror more thoroughly before declaring a mistrial. Prosecutors disagree, arguing in a new 30-page filing that the jury was genuinely deadlocked and that ending the trial was legally justified.
The two sides are also fighting over what attorneys can say publicly about the case. In a separate filing Wednesday, Lindsay’s defense accused prosecutors of trying to silence her lawyers by seeking restrictions on public comments about jury deliberations and former jurors.
“The harm the government fears is purely speculative,” her attorneys argued, claiming the proposed restrictions would violate their First Amendment rights.
Sullivan is expected to hear arguments on both issues Monday. His ruling on double jeopardy could determine whether Lindsay faces another trial for the deaths of her three children.
The post Patrick Clancy Fights to Hold Lindsay’s Doctors Accountable for Their Children’s Deaths appeared first on LAmag.
