Justia Health Law Opinion Summaries

The Missoula County Attorney’s Office petitioned for a determination that K.P. suffered from a mental disorder requiring involuntary commitment. After a commitment hearing, the district court involuntarily committed K.P. to the Montana State Hospital (MSH) in Warm Springs. K.P. appealed, arguing that the district court’s oral order of involuntary commitment violated Mont. Code Ann. 53-21-127(8) and due process because it failed to include the required factual findings. The Supreme Court reversed and vacated the district court’s commitment order, holding that the district court’s order did not satisfy section 53-21-127(8) because there were no findings of facts to support the general conclusions. View "In re K.P." on Justia Law

The State filed a petition seeking the commitment of C.K. to the Montana State Hospital (MSH) for involuntary mental health treatment pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 35-21-127. At the commitment hearing, the examining mental health professional, Kim Waples, testified about C.K.’s behavior based on her initial evaluation report and a therapeutic group home’s counseling and staff records. At the close of the hearing, the district court granted the State’s petition and committed C.K. to the MSH for ninety days. C.K. appealed, arguing that the district court erred in admitting and considering inadmissible hearsay referenced in Waples’ hearing testimony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) otherwise inadmissible hearsay may be admissible through an expert under Mont. R. Evid. 703 upon proper foundation and for the limited purpose of explaining the basis of the expert’s opinion rather than proving the facts asserted in the statement; and (2) the district court in this case did not abuse its discretion in admitting and considering the otherwise inadmissible hearsay referenced in Waples’ testimony for the purpose of explaining her opinions and recommendations. View "In re C.K." on Justia Law

D.L.B., a seventy-five-year-old male suffering from mental illness, has been involuntarily committed to mental hospitals throughout his life. In 2015, the State filed a petition to extend D.L.B.’s commitment to the Montana Mental Health Nursing Care Center for further evaluation and treatment. After an adjudicatory hearing, the district court orally extended D.L.B.’s commitment to the Nursing Care Center for a period of not more than six months. D.L.B. appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court’s findings were sufficient to support a conclusion that recommitment to the Nursing Care Center was statutorily authorized. View "In re D.L.B." on Justia Law

The Yellowstone County Attorney’s Office filed a petition to involuntarily commit R.H., who suffers from bipolar disorder and general anxiety disorder. After a hearing, the district court found that R.H. suffered from a mental disorder and was unable to care for herself, that Montana State Hospital was the least restrictive treatment option available to R.H., and that administration of medication may be necessary to facilitate treatment for R.H. The Supreme Court affirmed the order for commitment and reversed the administration of involuntary medication, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the commitment of R.H.; but (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the requirement that an involuntary medication order was necessary. View "In re R.H." on Justia Law

The Dawson County Attorney petitioned for the involuntary commitment of C.V. alleging that, due to her mental disorder, she was unable to provide for her own basic needs of safety and there was an imminent threat of injury to herself or others. The district court ultimately granted the State’s petition for involuntary commitment, concluding that C.V. suffered from a delusional disorder and that there was an imminent threat of injury to herself or others from her acts or omissions. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court’s decision that there was sufficient evidence to commit C.V. to the Montana State Hospital; but (2) reversed and remanded to the district court to strike the condition that C.V. shall be immediately taken back to the Montana State Hospital to continue treatment if she does not comply with discharge recommendations after the ninety-day commitment. View "In re C.V." on Justia Law

Initiative No. 181 (I-181) proposed to enact the “Montana Biomedical Research Authority Act.” The Secretary of State determined that sufficient signatures had been submitted to qualify I-181 for the November 8, 2016 general election ballot. Petitioners filed a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief requesting that the Supreme Court exercise its original jurisdiction to declare I-181 unconstitutional on its face and to enjoin its certification for the November 2016 general election ballot. The Supreme Court denied Petitioners’ request without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate civil action should the measure become law, as I-181 was not a “law.” View "Montana AFL-CIO v. McCulloch" on Justia Law

The State filed a petition to involuntarily commit S.H. based upon a psychiatrist’s recommendation. The district court appointed counsel to represent S.H. After a hearing on the petition, the district court ordered S.H. committed to the Montana State Hospital for a period not to exceed three months. S.H. appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court relied on sufficient evidence to determine S.H. required commitment because she was either unable to care for her basic needs or was a threat to others; and (2) S.H.’s counsel did not render ineffective assistance. View "In re S.H." on Justia Law

In 2014, the Lincoln County Attorney’s office filed a second petition alleging that C.C. suffered from a mental disorder and required commitment. After an adjudicatory hearing, the district court committed C.C. to the Montana State Hospital for a period of ninety days. C.C. appealed, arguing that the district court’s order lacked a sufficiently detailed statement of facts to justify her commitment. The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s order of commitment and its separate findings of fact and conclusions of law and reversed and remanded for an order of dismissal, holding that the district court erred when it failed to provide a detailed statement of facts to justify C.C.’s involuntary commitment. View "In re C.C." on Justia Law

S.H. appealed a court order committing her to the Montana State Hospital. In late 2014, S.H. sought help from the emergency department at the Billings Clinic. S.H. complained she was suffering from food poisoning, that there were snakes in her stomach, black bugs in the toilet, and the voices of God and Satan were arguing in her head. A psychiatrist at the Clinic examined S.H. and, upon his recommendation, the State filed a petition to involuntarily commit S.H. on November 12, 2014. The petition notified S.H. of her rights—including her “right to refuse any but lifesaving medication for up to 24 hours prior to any hearing held pursuant to [§ 53-21-115(11), MCA].” The District Court ordered S.H. detained at the Billings Clinic pending resolution of the petition. The District Court then appointed counsel to represent S.H., held an initial hearing, and ordered an evaluation. At the conclusion of the hearing, the District Court found that the State proved to a reasonable medical certainty that S.H. suffers from the mental disorder of bipolar disorder and that S.H. “is in a manic state, delusional, agitated and paranoid.” S.H. challenged the evidence presented against her as insufficient to support the order committing her to hospital care. The Supreme Court reviewed the District Court record, found sufficient evidence, and affirmed the District Court's decision. View "Matter of S.H." on Justia Law

Appellant, a severe alcoholic, consented to his initial commitment to the Montana State Hospital. When Appellant’s commitment was extended, he was transferred to the Montana Mental Health Nursing Care Center. A psychology specialist at the Nursing Care Center subsequently petitioned the district court to again extend Appellant’s commitment. After a hearing, the district court granted the petition and issued an order for recommitment requiring that Appellant be committed to the Nursing Care Center for a period not to exceed one year. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court’s order met the statutory requirements for extending commitment under Mont. Code Ann. 53-21-127 and -128. View "In re S.G.R." on Justia Law