While Lindsay Clancy fights to avoid a second murder trial in Plymouth, a quieter set of cases is moving in Norfolk Superior Court: Clancy and her ex-husband are both suing the doctors and hospitals that treated her before she killed their three children. Patrick Clancy’s case has a hearing on October 28, 2026 on the defendants’ motion to throw it out. Lindsay Clancy’s case names eleven defendants, several of whom testified against her at trial.
Her civil lawyers are blunt about the connection. “We would not be here today but for the negligence of her doctors and medical providers,” attorney Rosemary Scapicchio told reporters after the mistrial, as reported by Boston.com. Here is what each suit claims, the defense the providers are raising, and the Massachusetts rules that decide whether either case reaches a jury.
Two lawsuits, filed days apart
Patrick Clancy’s wrongful death suit, filed in January 2026, names psychiatrist Dr. Jennifer Tufts, psychiatric nurse practitioner Rebecca Jollotta, Aster Mental Health, and South Shore Health System. According to WCVB, it alleges that the “bevy and diverse and powerful medications they misprescribed coupled with their abject failure to appropriately monitor Lindsay” caused her condition to deteriorate. It points to video appointments and some visits “only 17 minutes long.” He is represented by Howard Cooper and Maria Davis of Todd & Weld.
Lindsay Clancy’s malpractice suit, filed days later in the same court, names eleven defendants: the same four plus psychiatrist Dr. Alia Goodheart, psychiatric nurse practitioner Julie Paul, mental health counselor Latiesha Dukes, McLean Hospital, Women & Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, and psychiatrists Dr. Zobeida Diaz and Dr. Elizabeth Madva, according to Boston.com. It alleges her providers failed to diagnose bipolar disorder and prescribed treatments that “exacerbated her condition and precipitated a severe psychotic break.” It describes Zoloft in October 2022, then Prozac and Seroquel, crisis calls in December that were turned away because she had no specific plan, and a McLean admission on New Year’s Eve 2022 in which, the suit says, she did not see a doctor until January 3.
The timing was not a coincidence. Massachusetts generally requires a malpractice suit against physicians and hospitals to be brought “within three years after the cause of action accrues,” under G.L. c. 260, § 4. The children died January 24, 2023. Both suits were filed in the last days before the three-year mark.
The providers’ main defense: no duty to warn
In Patrick Clancy’s case, all four defendants moved to dismiss in April, arguing they owed the children no duty of care, according to Boston.com. They also rely on a Massachusetts statute that sharply limits when a therapist can be liable for what a patient does to someone else.
Under G.L. c. 123, § 36B, there is “no duty owed by a licensed mental health professional to take reasonable precautions to warn or in any other way protect a potential victim” unless:
- the patient “communicated … an explicit threat to kill or inflict serious bodily injury upon a reasonably identified victim or victims” and has “the apparent intent and ability to carry out the threat”; or
- the patient “has a history of physical violence which is known to” the professional and there is “a clear and present danger” to a reasonably identified victim.
That is why a single factual question matters so much: did Lindsay Clancy tell her providers she had thoughts of harming her children? At the criminal trial, Tufts and Jollotta testified that she did not. Patrick Clancy’s lawyers say the opposite. His opposition says the complaint “specifically alleges that Lindsay communicated to [her providers] that ‘she was both suicidal and homicidal as to her children,'” and that Lindsay Clancy “will testify when she is deposed” that she told them.
His lawyers also argue § 36B does not apply at all, because this is not a failure-to-warn case. It is a negligent treatment case: the children’s deaths, they say, were “the reasonably foreseeable result of their malpractice.” The October 28 hearing is where that argument gets tested.
The malpractice tribunal
Lindsay Clancy’s case must first get past a Massachusetts screening step. Under G.L. c. 231, § 60B, “every action for malpractice, error or mistake against a provider of health care shall be heard by a tribunal” of a Superior Court judge, a physician, and an attorney. The plaintiff presents an offer of proof, and the tribunal decides whether the evidence “is sufficient to raise a legitimate question of liability appropriate for judicial inquiry or whether the plaintiff’s case is merely an unfortunate medical result.”
Tufts, Jollotta and Paul have demanded tribunals, Boston.com reported. The stakes: if the tribunal finds for a defendant, the plaintiff can continue “only upon filing bond in the amount of six thousand dollars,” and if the bond is not posted within 30 days, “the action shall be dismissed.”
What the damages rules mean for each case
Massachusetts caps some malpractice damages. Under G.L. c. 231, § 60H, a jury may not award more than $500,000 for pain and suffering and other general damages unless it finds a substantial or permanent loss or impairment of a bodily function, substantial disfigurement, or other special circumstances. Clancy is paralyzed from the waist down after her suicide attempt, which is the kind of permanent impairment that exception addresses.
The cap by its terms does not apply to “actions brought under section two of chapter two hundred and twenty-nine,” the wrongful death statute. Patrick Clancy’s suit for the deaths of Cora, Dawson and Callan is a wrongful death action.
How the civil cases and the criminal case collide
- Her testimony. Patrick Clancy’s lawyers say Lindsay will testify at a deposition that she told providers she was homicidal toward the children. In the criminal case she did not testify. Anything she says under oath in a civil deposition could be used by prosecutors at a retrial.
- Opposite theories of the same facts. The criminal defense says she was psychotic and not responsible. The civil suits say her providers should have seen it coming. Those theories fit together. The providers’ account that she never disclosed thoughts of harming the children is the same account they gave the criminal jury as Commonwealth witnesses.
- The same witnesses. Tufts and Jollotta testified for the Commonwealth. They are defendants in both civil suits.
Frequently asked questions
Is Lindsay Clancy suing her doctors?
Yes. In January 2026 she sued eleven defendants in Norfolk Superior Court, including Aster Mental Health, South Shore Health, McLean Hospital, Women & Infants Hospital and several psychiatrists and nurse practitioners, alleging they failed to diagnose bipolar disorder and prescribed medications that triggered a psychotic break.
Is Patrick Clancy suing Lindsay Clancy’s providers?
Yes. His wrongful death suit names Dr. Jennifer Tufts, Rebecca Jollotta, Aster Mental Health and South Shore Health. A hearing on their motion to dismiss is scheduled for October 28, 2026.
What is the duty to warn law in Massachusetts?
G.L. c. 123, section 36B says a mental health professional has no duty to warn or protect a potential victim unless the patient communicated an explicit threat against a reasonably identified victim with apparent intent and ability, or has a known history of violence creating a clear and present danger.
What is a medical malpractice tribunal?
A screening panel of a Superior Court judge, a physician and a lawyer under G.L. c. 231, section 60B. If it finds the evidence insufficient, the plaintiff must post a $6,000 bond to continue or the case is dismissed.
Is there a cap on malpractice damages in Massachusetts?
For pain and suffering and similar damages, $500,000 under G.L. c. 231, section 60H, unless there is substantial or permanent impairment or other special circumstances. The cap does not apply to wrongful death actions.
Sources: Boston.com, “Lindsay Clancy and her ex-husband both filed lawsuits over their children’s deaths. Where do those cases stand?”, September 10, 2026, read in full; WCVB, January 22 and 26, 2026. The complaints were not reviewed in full. Statutory text of G.L. c. 123, section 36B; G.L. c. 231, sections 60B and 60H; and G.L. c. 260, section 4 read at malegislature.gov. The providers deny negligence. Lindsay Clancy is presumed innocent of the criminal charges. General information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice.