01 / Background
The Case
Nick Carusillo, 29, entered Metro Atlanta Recovery Residences (MARR), a residential treatment program, in August 2017. He had been treated for bipolar disorder and substance-use problems. According to Associated Press reporting based on the parties’ court filings, his psychiatric medication was changed during treatment and his condition deteriorated. The program discharged him following a reported rule violation, and he was transferred to a sober-living residence.
On September 22, 2017, days after leaving MARR, Carusillo was struck and killed by multiple vehicles on Interstate 85 near Atlanta. His parents brought a wrongful-death lawsuit. This page does not describe his death as a suicide: the parties disputed the circumstances, and the trial team argued that psychiatric destabilization—not intentional self-harm—explained what happened.
02 / Treatment & discharge
What Went Wrong
The family’s lawyers argued that discontinuing lithium, reducing another medication, and discharging Carusillo to a lower level of care despite signs of instability exposed him to a foreseeable danger. In a public interview about the trial, Natalie Woodward described their position: the psychiatrist violated the standard of care in managing medication and the facility violated it in its discharge decision.
The defense disputed liability. As the AP reported, the facility’s lawyers said the medication change followed complaints about side effects, that Carusillo broke facility rules, and that he declined a proposed higher level of care. The jury heard both sides.
03 / Questions before the jury
The Legal Issues
The wrongful-death and malpractice claims asked whether the treating psychiatrist and residential program met the applicable standard of care in medication management, risk assessment, continuity of treatment, and discharge planning—and whether their conduct caused Carusillo’s death. The defense raised the circumstances of his actions after discharge; the plaintiffs argued his psychiatric condition and treatment history had to be understood together rather than reduced to a rule violation.
According to the Daily Report’s account of the verdict, the jury assigned fault to MARR and its employees and to the treating doctor, and assigned none to Carusillo. Those findings belong to this specific case and are not a prediction of another claim’s outcome.
04 / Evidence & trial
How the Case Was Proven
The public record and Woodward’s own discussion of the trial describe a detailed treatment timeline: prior stabilization, medication changes, behavior and discharge, and the fatal event shortly thereafter. Woodward said the trial team called a pharmacologist to explain the role of mood stabilizers and antipsychotics and the consequences of stopping medication. The team also addressed an autopsy toxicology finding that showed no illegal drugs in Carusillo’s system.
The trial team questioned the treating doctor and defense witnesses, while testimony from the family put Carusillo’s life and care history before the jury. This summary is drawn from public accounts and reporting; it does not purport to reproduce the complete evidentiary record.
05 / Verdict
The Result
In August 2022, a DeKalb County jury returned a verdict reported at approximately $77.7 million. The Daily Report reported $55 million for the full value of Carusillo’s life, $10 million for conscious pain and suffering, $1 million in punitive damages, and additional awards for attorneys’ fees and expenses. It reported a 75% allocation of fault to MARR and its employees and 25% to the treating doctor. The verdict is a jury award; this page makes no claim about collections or later proceedings.
Every case depends on its own facts and law. A past verdict does not guarantee or predict a similar result.
06 / Trial team
Attorneys
Natalie Woodward represented the Carusillo family with co-counsel. The Daily Report’s trial account provides further reporting on the case. Learn more about Natalie’s practice and other selected outcomes.
Public record
Sources & Scope
Details above reflect public reporting and the trial lawyer’s public account. The facts and contentions are attributed where they differ; private client records are not published here.