Justia Health Law Opinion Summaries

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

The district court granted a permanent injunction against the enforcement of certain provisions of the 2011 Montana Marijuana Act. The State appealed the grant of the injunction, and Plaintiffs cross-appealed the district court’s refusal to enjoin other provisions of the Act. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) erred in determining that the Act’s provision requiring the Department of Public Health and Human Services to notify the Board of Medical Examiners of any physician who certifies twenty-five or more patients in a year for medical marijuana fails rational review; (2) did not err in determining that the Act’s commercial prohibitions fail rational basis review; (3) erred in applying strict scrutiny review to the Act’s provision prohibiting advertising by providers of medical marijuana; (4) did not err in determining that the Act’s provision prohibiting probationers from becoming registered cardholders for medical marijuana use withstands a facial challenge under rational basis scrutiny; and (5) did not err in determining that the Act’s provision allowing warrantless inspections of medical marijuana providers’ businesses comports with constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches. View "Mont. Cannabis Indus. Ass’n v. State" on Justia Law

After a hearing, the district court entered an order for Appellant's involuntary commitment, not to exceed ninety days, initially to Montana State Hospital. Appellant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the district court’s verbal and written order lacked sufficient factual detail to satisfy statutory requirements for an order of commitment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court’s findings were sufficient to satisfy Mont. Code Ann. 53-21-127(8)(a); and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that, as a result of his mental disorder, Appellant required an order of involuntary commitment. View "In re B.D." on Justia Law

While institutionalized at the Montana State Hospital, Defendant assaulted and injured a nurse. Defendant was charged with felony aggravated assault and was transferred to Montana State Prison, where he remained until the district court ordered that he be transferred back to the Hospital. The Hospital was statutorily required to submit a fitness-to-proceed evaluation report to the district court within ninety days of commitment but untimely submitted its report. Defendant moved to dismiss his assault charge on the grounds that the fitness evaluation report had not been timely submitted. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that by agreeing to a continuing course of treatment at the Hospital after the initial report was submitted to the district court, Defendant waived his objection to the timeliness of that report. Remanded. View "State v. Robertson" on Justia Law

In 2014, the district court found Respondent to be suffering from a mental disorder requiring commitment. The court involuntarily committed Respondent to the Montana State Hospital (MSH). On June 2, 2014, the district court issued an order of commitment summarizing the commitment. On June 5, 2014, the district court filed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order supporting the June 2 order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court’s June 2 order of commitment was deficient due and failed to comply with Mont. Code Ann. 53-21-127(8)(a) because it did not contain a detailed statement of the facts as required by section 53-21-127(8)(a); (2) the district court’s June 5 order was not procedurally invalid; and (3) the district court’s findings in the June 5 order were supported by substantial evidence, sufficient to support the decision to commit Respondent to the MSH. View "In re M.P.-L." on Justia Law

Todd Kiser initiated this action by filing a form complaint against Noel Kiser and Marie McDowell alleging that Noel and Marie owed him a sum of money arising out of an asserted agreement among them regarding their father’s nursing care and cremation costs. The small claims court entered judgment in favor of Todd. Noel and Marie appealed the judgment to the district court. The district court dismissed the appeal, reasoning that the brief filed by Noel and Marie had been untimely filed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in dismissing the appeal on the basis of the briefing deadline imposed in the inapplicable Municipal Court Appellate Rules. Remanded to the district court for reinstatement of Noel and Marie’s appeal and for further proceedings. View "Kiser v. Kiser" on Justia Law

After a hearing, the district court determined that S.C. should be committed involuntarily to Montana State Hospital (MSH). The State later conditionally released S.C. from MSH. The State then filed an untimely petition to extend S.C.'s conditional release, which the district court granted. The State subsequently filed a second untimely petition to extend S.C.'s conditional release, which the district court also granted. Thereafter, the State filed a third untimely petition to extend S.C.'s conditional release. S.C. objected, arguing that the State's third petition to extend his commitment period failed to comply with the timeliness requirements of Mont. Code Ann. 53-21-198. The district court granted the State's petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the expiration of S.C.'s commitment period before the State's first petition to extend S.C.'s conditional release left the district court without jurisdiction; and (2) consequently, the district court was without authority to extend the period of S.C.'s conditions of release when the State filed the second and third petitions. View "In re S.C." on Justia Law