Ford v. Norton
| Decision Date | 07 June 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. F032740.,F032740. |
| Citation | 89 Cal.App.4th 974,107 Cal.Rptr.2d 776 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Stanley FORD, an Incompetent Person, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Robert NORTON et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
The Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act)1 is intended to provide prompt, short-term, community-based intensive treatment, without stigma or loss of liberty, to individuals with mental disorders who are either dangerous or gravely disabled. (Conservatorship of Chambers (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 277, 282, 139 Cal. Rptr. 357.) When involuntary intensive treatment is indicated, the LPS Act authorizes the detention of mentally disordered persons for a 72-hour treatment and evaluation. (§ 5150 et seq.) Thereafter, the patient may be certified for additional involuntary detentions. (§ 5250 et seq.)
The central issue in this appeal is whether a psychologist who releases an involuntarily hospitalized mental patient before the end of the 72-hour treatment and evaluation hold is exempt from civil liability when that patient thereafter injures another person. The trial court concluded that, although the operative statute restricts immunity to "the psychiatrist directly responsible for the person's treatment," a psychologist is also exempt. In reaching this result, the trial court relied on California Assn. of Psychology Providers v. Rank (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1, 270 Cal.Rptr. 796, 793 P.2d 2.
However, the trial court misconstrued the impact of California Assn. of Psychology Providers v. Rank on the situation presented here. Under sections 5152 and 5154, only "directly responsible" psychiatrists are exempt from liability. Consequently, the trial court's dismissal of the underlying complaint must be reversed.
Appellant, Stanley Ford, voluntarily admitted himself to a psychiatric hospital for care and treatment. At the time of his admission, respondent Robert Norton, a psychologist, and Dwight Sievert, a psychiatrist, evaluated Ford. Ford was found, to be "psychotic and/or schizophrenic." Thereafter, Ford was placed in the "open unit" of the hospital and given anti-psychotic medications.
However, after approximately four days at the hospital, Ford's condition worsened. A night nurse called respondent Harvey Biala, a psychiatrist, at his home to report on Ford and receive guidance on how to proceed. Biala told the nurse to arrange for Ford to undergo an assessment by the appropriate professional to determine whether Ford met the criteria for involuntary detention under section 5150 and, if so, to transfer Ford to the locked ward of the hospital. Biala had not been treating Ford. He was contacted only because he was on call for Sievert.
Thereafter, Scheree Lau, a licensed clinical social worker, performed the section 5150 assessment. Lau determined that Ford was "gravely disabled" and a "danger to others." Ford was then transferred to the psychiatric intensive care unit and involuntarily detained.
The following morning, Norton spent approximately 30 to 40 minutes with Ford and determined that he should be released from the involuntary detention. Shortly thereafter, Norton spoke with Biala for approximately five minutes regarding Ford. Acting on Norton's advice, Biala wrote Ford a prescription for anti-psychotic medication and medically cleared him for discharge from the hospital. Norton then wrote an order for Ford's discharge.
Less than 12 hours after Ford was placed under the section 5150 hold he left the hospital. Within five hours of his discharge, Ford returned to his apartment and stabbed his roommate in the back. Ford's roommate survived but was seriously injured.
Ford was charged with criminal assault, found not guilty by reason of insanity and incarcerated in the state hospitals at Atascadero and Napa.
Based on his treatment at, and early release from the psychiatric hospital, Ford, by and through his guardian ad litem, Michael P. Ford, filed the underlying medical malpractice action. Ford alleges that if he had received proper treatment from respondents while under their care and if he had been held for the entire 72-hour treatment and evaluation, he would have neither injured his roommate nor suffered the resulting consequences. His claimed damages include lost wages, medical and hospital expenses, and emotional distress.
Trial of this case began with hearings on the parties' various motions in limine. In arguing Ford's motions, counsel made offers of proof that amounted to what was essentially an opening statement. Immediately thereafter, before a jury was empanelled, respondents moved for nonsuit. The sole basis for respondents' motion was that they were immune under section 5154.
The trial court granted the motion for nonsuit and the action was dismissed. Relying on California Assn. of Psychology Providers v. Rank, supra, 51 Cal.3d 1, 270 Cal.Rptr. 796, 793 P.2d 2, the court ruled that wherever "psychiatrist" is found in sections 5152 and 5154 it must be replaced with the phrase "psychologist or psychiatrist." Based on this interpretation of these statutes, the court concluded that both Norton and Biala were immune from liability for the aftermath of Ford's early release.
Under the LPS Act, a person who is dangerous or gravely disabled due to a mental disorder may be detained for involuntary treatment. However, in accordance with the Legislative purpose of preventing inappropriate, indefinite commitments of mentally disordered persons, such detentions are implemented incrementally. (Michael E.L. v. County of San Diego (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 515, 530, 228 Cal.Rptr. 139.) Further, these involuntary placements can be terminated before the expiration of the commitment period. Thus, the LPS Act assures a person properly detained of an opportunity for early release. (183 Cal.App.3d at p. 530, 228 Cal.Rptr. 139.)
However, the LPS Act also recognizes that the early release of involuntarily committed patients can pose a risk of harm to others. The evaluation and treatment of mentally disordered persons is inherently uncertain and cannot reliably predict future conduct. Nevertheless, the Legislature determined that the act's goal of ending indefinite confinements outweighed the early release potential for harm. Consequently, as a corollary to the early release provisions, the LPS Act exempts specified persons from civil or criminal liability. (Michael E.L. v. County of San Diego, supra, 183 Cal.App.3d at p. 530, 228 Cal. Rptr. 139.)
At issue in this proceeding is the 72-hour treatment and evaluation authorized by section 5150, the first step in the involuntary commitment process. This section provides that when any person, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, specified persons may cause that mentally disordered individual to be placed in a designated facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation. The persons who may take such action include peace officers, members of the staff of the evaluation facility, designated members of a mobile crisis team, and other professional persons designated by the county. Thus, a broad range of personnel can initiate the placement of a mentally disordered individual for the 72-hour evaluation.
Once a person is admitted to a facility under section 5150, he or she must receive an evaluation as soon as possible. (§ 5152, subd. (a).) Thereafter, the person may be released before 72 hours have elapsed. However, section 5152 imposes restrictions. An early release may occur "only if, the psychiatrist directly responsible for the person's treatment believes, as a result of his or her personal observations, that the person no longer requires evaluation or treatment." (§ 5152, subd. (a).)
The process set forth in section 5152 for resolving a dispute between a psychiatrist and another professional over whether to terminate a 72-hour detention further confirms that a psychiatrist must make the decision. If another professional person who is otherwise authorized to release the patient believes that the 72-hour detention should be terminated, that professional has no direct power to effectuate an early release. Rather, if the psychiatrist directly responsible for the patient's treatment objects to the other professional's recommendation, the matter is referred to a second psychiatrist for a final decision. (§ 5152, subd. (a).) Thus, although the LPS Act permits a broad range of persons to initiate a 72 hour detention, only a psychiatrist can authorize an early release.
As noted above, to advance the goal of ending indefinite commitments, the LPS Act exempts certain individuals from liability following a patient's early release. Here, the pertinent exemption is found in section 5154, subdivision (a). That section provides, in part:
"[I]f the provisions of Section 5152 have been met, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial