Yellow police tape marks off a crime scene.
PITTSBURGH – A cop shot by a mentally troubled murderer can sue the hospital that released him from an involuntary discharge after less than a day, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided, overturning a lower court ruling that dismissed the case.
At issue in Robert Barnes’ lawsuit against St. Clair Hospital of Pittsburgh is whether the “professional rescuer doctrine” applied to his lawsuit, filed in 2021 in Allegheny County. Barnes was among the officers called to apprehend George Tratras after he killed his parents, whom he had accused of witchcraft.
Barnes was told it “could absolutely be a worst-case scenario” and was wearing two ballistic vests that came in handy when Tratras opened fire. The vests stopped a bullet, but Barnes says he still suffered a contusion, hematoma and injuries to his shoulder and back.
The Superior Court ruled today that claims like Barnes’ are available under the Mental Health Procedure Act, which has been construed to impose liability on third parties that discharge patients who later injure themselves or others.
Just because Barnes is a “professional rescuer” doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be allowed to pursue his claim, the court said.
“We fail to see how the assumption of risk doctrine can apply in a professional negligence case and eliminate (St. Clair’s) statutory duty to treat mental health patients within the standard of care,” Judge Brandon Neuman wrote.
George Tratras, 25, lived with his parents in Mt. Lebanon in 2021, but his father John became increasingly concerned with his mental health, leading to an involuntary commitment at St. Clair. John reported that George had claimed himself to be a high priest from the Old Testament who would destroy his parents if they kept doing witchcraft.
Psychiatrist Jacob McBride assessed George as low risk with no imminent threat of violence. John and wife Ana had apparently told a social worker they had changed their minds about the commitment and wanted George to return home, which contained firearms.
George was in the hospital for only 21 hours before discharge. Fifteen days later, he shot and killed his parents and reported it to 911. A staging area was prepared for his apprehension, where he began firing at police officers who approached the home.
George jumped in a vehicle and took off, but he crashed. He then shot himself, and Barnes hired attorney George Farneth to sue over his injuries, alleging gross negligence by the hospital.
Allegheny County judge Alan Hertzberg awarded St. Clair summary judgment in 2025, writing the professional rescuer doctrine recognizes the inherent risk in police officer’s work. He said they have no claims against persons who created that risk.
But he was wrong, the Superior Court decided. Any assumption of risk by Barnes can’t “eliminate a provider’s statutory duty under the MHPA to avoid willful misconduct or gross negligence in the treatment of mental health patients,” Neuman wrote.
Judge Victor Stabile dissented, just as he did earlier this month from another pro-plaintiff ruling by the court. An “assumption of risk” analysis is required in any negligence action, including the gross negligence claim filed by Barnes, he said, noting previous rulings in premises liability cases that held property owners couldn’t be liable for failing to warn emergency responders about hazards.
The Superior Court has also noted in the past that “courts almost universally recognize that neither a fireman nor a policeman can recover when their complaint is based on the same conduct that initially created the need for the officer’s presence in his official capacity.”
Stabile complained that the majority separated Barnes’ case as brought under statutory law (the MHPA) instead of common law. “(T)he majority does not cogently explain why this is an apt or meaningful distinction for the purpose of this case,” he said.
“Since Officer Barnes’ damages were sustained due to known dangers that he voluntarily encountered during a planned emergency response in his official role, the statutory duty of care owed by Appellees to Officer Barnes under the MHPA was eliminated.”
