Buchanan ex rel. Estate of Buchanan v. Maine

Decision Date16 February 2006
Docket NumberNo. CIV.04-26-B-W.,CIV.04-26-B-W.
Citation417 F.Supp.2d 24
PartiesDaniel BUCHANAN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Michael BUCHANAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. State of MAINE, et al. Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Maine

Robert J. Stolt, Lipman, Katz & McKee, Augusta, ME, for Daniel Buchanan Personal Representative of the Estate of Michael Buchanan, Estate of Michael Buchanan, Plaintiffs.

Christopher C. Taub, Maine Attorney, General's Office, Augusta, ME, for State of Maine, Lynn Duby, Sabra Burdick, Julianne Edmonson, Joel Gilbert, Dept. of Health and Human Services Com'r.

Cassandra S. Shaffer, Peter T. Marchesi, Wheeler & Arey, P.A., Waterville, ME, for County of Lincoln, Robert Emerson, Kenneth Hatch, William Carter, Sheriff, Lincoln County, Defendants.

ORDER ON STATE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

WOODCOCK, District Judge.

On February 25, 2002, Deputy Kenneth Hatch shot and killed Michael Buchanan. This law suit tests the legal implications of his death.1 Concluding there are no genuine issues of material fact with respect to Counts II, VI, and VII of the Third Amended Complaint, this Courts GRANTS the State Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket # 108) in its entirety.2

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Michael Buchanan

Michael Buchanan, the second of eight siblings, was born in 1940. State Defendants' Statement of Material Facts (DSMF) ¶ 1. In the early 1970s, Mr. Buchanan began exhibiting signs of mental illness and was eventually diagnosed with schizo-affective disorder. Id. ¶ 12; Plaintiff's Statement of Additional Material Facts (PSMF) ¶ 2. The defining characteristic of this disorder is that, even in the absence of manic or depressive symptoms, an individual exhibits peculiarity, oddity, and disorganized thought. PSMF ¶ 3. Individuals with schizo-affective disorder also exhibit symptoms associated with schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder. Id. ¶ 10.

Mr. Buchanan moved to Maine in approximately 1978. DSMF ¶ 3. He lived in Somerville in a house he built with help from a brother and a friend. Id. ¶ 4. Other than the beginning of his time in Maine, Mr. Buchanan lived alone. Id. ¶ 5. His house was situated at the end of a 1/2 to 3/4 mile driveway, often impassable by a standard vehicle, and visitors were frequently required to walk the length of the driveway to reach Mr. Buchanan's house. Id. ¶ 6.

Mr. Buchanan was twice committed involuntarily to the Augusta Mental Health Institute (AMHI): first in 1988 and then from September 11 to October 19, 1999. Id. ¶ 7. The basis for Mr. Buchanan's 1999 admission to AMHI was his threat to shoot a store clerk after learning the price of cigarettes had increased. Id. ¶ 8. As a result of his AMHI admissions, Mr. Buchanan became a member of the "AMHI class." Id. ¶ 9.

B. The AMHI Class Action Lawsuit and the Consent Decree

The "AMHI class" denotes a class of plaintiffs certified by the Maine Superior Court in a class action lawsuit filed on February 27, 1989.3 Id. ¶ 10. The lawsuit alleged the state of Maine was violating certain state laws and various provisions of the state and federal constitutions in its treatment of patients at AMHI. Id. ¶ 11. On August 2, 1990, the class action lawsuit was resolved through a Settlement Agreement incorporated into a Consent Decree. Id. ¶ 12. Pursuant to their terms, the state agreed to develop systems and provide various health care services to class members. Id. ¶ 14.

The Settlement Agreement contains numerous provisions regarding the delivery of services to class members. Id. ¶ 16. Most relevant are paragraphs 49-83 relating to Individualized Support Plans (ISP).4 Id.; Plaintiff's Opposition to State of Maine Defendants' Statement of Uncontested Material Facts (PODSMF) ¶ 16. An ISP is a written document prepared by a team, including the class member; it assesses the class member's strengths and needs, describes goals and objectives, and sets forth services necessary to meet them. DSMF ¶ 18; PODSMF ¶ 18. The Settlement Agreement declares that every class member, upon discharge from AMHI, is entitled to receive an ISP, and to have the ISP coordinated and monitored by a community support worker. DSMF ¶¶ 17, 19. Class members, however, are not required to accept the assistance of a community support worker.5 Id. ¶ 20.

C. The Settlement Agreement and Forced Treatment

So long as a class member has the capacity to make his own health care decisions,6 he may, except in limited circumstances,7 refuse any service or treatment offered by the State. PODSMF ¶ 22. The only exception applicable here is involuntary hospitalization pursuant to 34-B M.R.S.A. § 3863 et seq.8 DSMF ¶ 23; State Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs Statement of Additional Material Facts (DRPSMF) ¶ 109. Pursuant to Section 3863(1), "[a]ny health officer, law enforcement officer or other person may make a written application to admit a person to a mental hospital ... stating: A. His belief that the person is mentally ill and, because of his illness, poses a likelihood of serious harm; and, B. The grounds for this belief." "Likelihood of serious harm" has the following meaning:

A. A substantial risk of physical harm to the person himself as manifested by evidence of recent threats of, or attempts at, suicide or serious bodily harm to himself . . .;

B. A substantial risk of physical harm to other persons as manifested by recent evidence of homicidal or other violent behavior or recent evidence that others are placed in reasonable fear of violent behavior and serious physical harm to them . . .; or,

C. A reasonable certainty that severe physical or mental impairment or injury will result to the person alleged to be mentally ill as manifested by recent evidence of his actions or behavior which demonstrate his inability to avoid or protect himself from such impairment or injury . . . .

34-B M.R.S.A. § 3801(4).

D. Michael Buchanan and the Intensive Case Management Program

During Mr. Buchanan's 1999 stay at AMHI, he was referred to the Maine Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Intensive Case Management program. DSMF ¶ 26. The primary purpose of the Intensive Case Management program is to help persons with mental illnesses live in the community by assisting them in obtaining services and entitlements, such as housing, Medicaid and disability benefits; access to mental health treatment and medical care; fuel assistance; and, food stamps. Id. ¶ 27.

In the fall of 1999 while Mr. Buchanan was still a patient at AMHI, DHHS assigned Joel Gilbert, a DHHS employee, to be his intensive case manager (ICM).9 Id. ¶ 28. As an ICM, Mr. Gilbert was charged with case management for a targeted group of high risk mental health clients living in a community. PODSMF ¶ 29. He provided immediate and ongoing comprehensive case management, follow up, and responsive interventions to a small group of the most problematic or high risk mental health clients to support their integration into the local community. Id. An ICM is obligated to assess the client's mental condition and determine whether an involuntary hospitalization evaluation by a qualified professional is warranted. PSMF ¶¶ 8-9. Such an evaluation is warranted only when the ICM believes the client poses a substantial risk of harm to himself or others, or when the client is incapable of protecting himself from harm. DRPSMF ¶¶ 8-9. If an ICM believes involuntary hospitalization is appropriate, but the client refuses to see a professional qualified to make the commitment determination, the ICM can do nothing more than alert the police. Id. The police may take the client into protective custody if they determine independently that the client poses a risk of harm to himself or others. Id.

E. Joel Gilbert's Relationship with Michael Buchanan

Mr. Gilbert first met Mr. Buchanan at AMHI on October 7, 1999. DSMF ¶ 36. During this visit, Mr. Buchanan told Mr. Gilbert he did not want any transportation assistance10 and refused to go to the mental health center, but agreed to allow Mr. Gilbert "to stop by on occasion to see how he is doing, although he indicated he didn't need it." DSMF, exh. C at 1; PODSMF ¶ 37. He also said he did not want to participate in the development of an ISP. DSMF ¶ 37.

Mr. Buchanan was discharged from AMHI on October 19, 1999 and briefly sent to Lincoln County Jail; on October 25, 1999, he was bailed by his brother and returned home. PSMF ¶ 28. In preparation for his visit with Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Gilbert spoke by telephone with James Buchanan, Michael Buchanan's brother. PSMF ¶ 30. James Buchanan informed Mr. Gilbert that his brother was dangerous, but he had checked his home and found no weapons. Id. He did not think Michael would kill anyone, however. Id.

Mr. Gilbert contacted Maine's Adult Protective Services (APS) on October 27, 1999 and requested that it conduct a study to determine whether Mr. Buchanan should have a guardian. DSMF ¶ 51; PODSMF ¶ 51. APS assigned Elaine Isakson to investigate and, after performing an extensive assessment, she decided not to seek state guardianship of Mr. Buchanan. DSMF ¶¶ 52-53. Ms. Isakson, however, did speak with Mr. Buchanan's family and provided them with all the information necessary for them to petition for guardianship. Id. ¶ 54. Mr. Buchanan's family never filed a petition for guardianship of Michael. Id. ¶ 55.

Mr. Gilbert first visited Mr. Buchanan at home on October 28, 1999. Id. ¶ 41. Mr Buchanan's living conditions were horrid. Id. ¶ 42. He had no running water and his only source of heat was a woodstove. Id. He had no indoor toilet, instead he used an outhouse in his front yard. Id. In place of a bed, Mr. Buchanan slept on a sofa without cushions. Id. His only source of drinking water was a nearby stream. Id. Mr. Gilbert ended up taking Mr. Buchanan to an appointment at the Shoreline Mental Health Center. PSMF ¶ 31. Mr. Buchanan acknowledged he needed help attending his doctor's appointments...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Buchanan v. Maine
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • November 16, 2006
    ...a State's immunity as to claims of access to mental health services and so granted summary judgment to the State.1 Buchanan v. Maine, 417 F.Supp.2d 24, 38-41 (D.Me. 2006); Buchanan v. Maine, 377 F.Supp.2d 276, 279-83 (D.Me. The lengthy and complicated procedural history in this case need no......
  • Marasco & Nesselbush, LLP v. Collins
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • March 12, 2020
    ..."inference of ill-will or improper motive ‘must flow rationally from the underlying facts....’ " Buchanan ex rel. Estate of Buchanan v. Maine , 417 F. Supp. 2d 24, 38 (D. Mass. Feb. 16, 2006) (citing Rubinovitz , 60 F.3d at 911 ).The Court finds that M&N has not presented evidence showing t......
  • Wadsworth v. Me. Sch. Admin. Dist. 40
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maine
    • October 2, 2020
    ...there is no exception to immunity under § 8111(1)(C) for "acts or omissions characterized by animus." Buchanan ex rel. Estate of Buchanan v. Maine, 417 F. Supp. 2d 24, 44 (D. Me. 2006), aff'd, 469 F.3d 158 (1st Cir. 2006) (Buchanan). To determine whether an act is discretionary, courts cons......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT