Doe v. Comm'r of the N.H. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.

• Decision Date: 11 May 2021
• Docket Number: No. 2020-0454,2020-0454
• Citation: 174 N.H. 239,261 A.3d 968
• Parties: Jane DOE v. COMMISSIONER OF the NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

174 N.H. 239

261 A.3d 968

Jane DOE

v.COMMISSIONER OF the NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

No. 2020-0454

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Argued: March 25, 2021

Opinion Issued: May 11, 2021

Simpson & Mulligan, P.L.L.C., of Lebanon (Gary Apfel on the brief and orally), for the plaintiff.

Gordon J. MacDonald, attorney general(Anthony J. Galdieri, senior assistant attorney general, Daniel E.Will, solicitor general, and Samuel R.V. Garland, assistant attorney general, on the brief, and Mr. Galdieri orally), for the defendant.

American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, of Concord (Gilles R. Bissonnette and Henry R. Klementowicz on the brief), and Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, of New York, New York (Theodore E. Tsekerides, Aaron J. Curtis, and Colin McGrath on the brief), for the class plaintiffs in John Doe v. Commissioner , No. 1:18-CV-01039-JD(D.N.H.), in their individual capacities and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, as amici curiae.

Law Office of Joshua L. Gordon, of Concord (Joshua L. Gordon on the brief), for National Alliance on Mental Illness New Hampshire, as amicus curiae.

Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green, P.A., of Manchester (Michael D. Ramsdell and James P. Harris on the brief), for New Hampshire Hospital Association & a., as amici curiae.

HICKS, J.

The defendant, the Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services(DHHS), appeals an order of the Superior Court(Tucker, J.) denying her motion to dismiss and granting the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the plaintiff, who appears under the pseudonym "Jane Doe."The plaintiff's petition sought her release from New Hampshire Hospital (NHH) on the ground that she failed to receive a probable cause hearing within three days of her involuntary emergency admission, as required by RSA 135-C:31, I (2015).The trial court ruled in her favor, and we affirm.

I.Factual Background

The following facts either were recited by the trial court or reflect the content of documents in the appellate record.On August 25, 2020, a resident physician of adult psychiatry prepared a complaint for a compulsory mental examination of the plaintiff.The resident averred that the plaintiff was "in need of involuntary emergency admission" as set forth in an accompanying petition and that she would not consent to a mental examination.A justice of the peace ordered the compulsory mental examination to take place and ordered law enforcement to take custody of the plaintiff and deliver her to the emergency room at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon (DHMC).Hanover police executed the order and brought the plaintiff to DHMC.

In the accompanying petition, the resident described the plaintiff's "specific dangerous acts or behaviors" demonstrating that she"so lack[ed] the capacity to care for [her] own welfare that there [was] a likelihood of death, serious bodily injury, or serious debilitation" if her involuntary emergency admission were not ordered.Physical and mental examinations of the plaintiff were conducted at the direction of a DHMC psychiatrist, who had been approved by a qualifying community mental health center to certify involuntary admissions.That day, August 25, based upon her review of the results of those examinations and the plaintiff's conduct as described by the psychiatric resident, the psychiatrist signed a certificate for the plaintiff's involuntary emergency admission.The certificate stated that, in the psychiatrist's opinion, "the criteria of RSA 135-C:27[were] satisfied, as the [plaintiff was] in such mental condition as a result of mental illness that [she] pose[d] a serious likelihood of danger to self or others."SeeRSA 135-C:27(2015)(setting forth the criteria rendering a person eligible for involuntary emergency admission).The certificate did not identify the receiving facility that could "best provide"the plaintiff with the requisite "degree of security and treatment."SeeRSA 135-C:2, XIV (2015)(defining "receiving facility").

DHMC is not a receiving facility within the meaning of RSA 135-C:2, XIV.Moreover, although RSA 135-C:29, I, requires that a patient be "immediately" delivered to such a facility "[u]pon completion of an involuntary emergency admission certificate,"the plaintiff was not delivered to a receiving facility for more than two weeks.RSA 135-C:29, I (Supp. 2020).Instead, because of a lack of receiving-facility beds, she was kept in the emergency room at DHMC for more than two weeks.

NHH is a receiving facility under RSA 135-C:2, XIV.SeeRSA 135-C:26, I (2015).According to the plaintiff, her attorney was advised on September 2, 2020, that there were 60 people then waiting for admission to NHH, and the plaintiff was "tenth in line."In a September 3, 2020 petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking her release from DHMC, plaintiff's counsel stated that the plaintiff was being kept in a windowless room in the emergency department against her will.Plaintiff's counsel further stated that, despite being detained in the emergency room since August 25, 2020, the plaintiff had "not been provided with an involuntary emergency admission hearing before an independent fact finder" or been afforded "any opportunity to challenge whether there exist[ed] probable cause for her continued detention."

The plaintiff was delivered to NHH on September 11, 2020.On September 15, 2020, which was within three days of her arrival at NHH (not including Sundays and holidays pursuant to RSA 135-C:31, I), the plaintiff was given a probable cause hearing.September 15, 2020, was 17 days (not including Sundays and holidays) from the date on which the DHMC psychiatrist completed the certificate for the plaintiff's involuntary emergency admission.

The plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the probable cause proceeding, arguing, among other things, that her involuntary emergency admission was unlawful because she had been held for 18 days at the DHMC emergency room without a probable cause hearing, had been "denied her statutorily mandated three-day hearing," and had been "denied release within ten days of her initial confinement."As recommended by a Referee (B. Kissinger, R.), the Circuit Court(Spath, J.) denied the plaintiff's motion to dismiss and found probable cause for the plaintiff's involuntary emergency admission.

On September 16, 2020, the plaintiff brought the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking her release from NHH.She argued that her continued confinement in NHH was unlawful because, contrary to RSA chapter 135-C, she had been: (1) held "indefinitely" at the DHMC emergency room; (2)"denied prompt and adequate notice"; (3)"denied a three-day hearing"; (4)"denied review of the grounds of her confinement by an independent fact finder"; and (5)"denied the prospect of release within ten days of her initial confinement."

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's petition, arguing that the three-day period for providing a probable cause hearing does not begin to run until the person is delivered to a designated receiving facility.The superior court disagreed, concluding "that when RSA chapter 135-C is considered as a whole, the involuntary emergency admission and the rights accruing to those so admitted to the state mental health system are not tolled until the person arrives at the receiving facility, but are triggered when the [involuntary emergency admission] certificate is complete."The court observed that RSA chapter 135-C "contemplates the person's prompt delivery to a receiving facility without the delay that occurred here."The court concluded that, because the plaintiff did not receive a probable cause hearing until 17 days after the involuntary emergency admission certificate had been completed (not including Sundays and holidays), her continued confinement in NHH was unlawful, and ordered her release.This appeal followed.

II.Discussion

In an appeal from a grant of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, we accept the trial court's factual findings unless they lack support in the record or are clearly erroneous, and review its legal conclusions denovo.SeeBarnet v. Warden, N.H. State Prison for Women, 159 N.H. 465, 468, 986 A.2d 579(2009)(concerning the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus);seealsoState v. Santamaria, 169 N.H. 722, 725, 157 A.3d 409(2017)(applying the standard of review that we use in an appeal from the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to an appeal from the dismissal of a petition for a writ of coram nobis).

"The procedural prerequisite for a court's consideration of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is an allegation of a present deprivation of a protected liberty interest."Brennan v. Cunningham, 126 N.H. 600, 603-04, 493 A.2d 1213(1985)(quotation omitted)."[C]ivil commitment for any purpose constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection."Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323(1979);seeIn re Scott L., 124 N.H. 327, 330, 469 A.2d 1336(1983)(noting that "the deprivation of liberty inherent in civil commitment is subject to significant due process requirements").Indeed, "[t]he private interests at stake in civil commitment proceedings, loss of liberty and social stigmatization, are substantial and parallel those at risk in the criminal context."In re Richard A., 146 N.H. 295, 298, 771 A.2d 572(2001);seeAddington, 441 U.S. at 425-26, 99 S.Ct. 1804(recognizing that "involuntary commitment to a mental hospital after a finding of probable dangerousness to self or others can engender adverse social consequences to the individual").

The trial court ruled that the plaintiff's continued confinement in NHH was unlawful because she"did not receive a probable cause hearing within three days of her emergency admission."On appeal, the defendant argues that the probable cause hearing in this case was...