Harhut, Matter of
| Decision Date | 11 April 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. C6-85-1432,C6-85-1432 |
| Citation | 385 N.W.2d 305 |
| Parties | In the Matter of William G. HARHUT, Jr. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Reports filed by treatment facility were sufficient under Minn.Stat. § 253B.12 (1984).
2. Minn.Stat. § 253B.13, subd. 2 (Supp.1985) providing indeterminate commitment for mentally retarded patient, is upheld under the due process and equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions.
3. However, mentally retarded patients indeterminately committed must be represented by counsel who will receive all periodic medical reports. Furthermore, it is ordered that there be a judicial review of indeterminate commitments every 3 years, the nature of such review to be at the discretion of the trial court.
4. The burden of proof in a commitment hearing under Minn.Stat. § 253B.17 (1984) is on the party seeking to continue commitment.
Stephen D. Radtke, Bloomington, for appellant.
Thomas L. Johnson, Hennepin Co. Atty., John R. Owen, Asst. Hennepin Co. Atty., Minneapolis, Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Mary L. Stanislav, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondent.
Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.
This case is here pursuant to a request to us from the court of appeals for accelerated review. The issue raised is the constitutionality of indeterminate commitment for mentally retarded patients under Minn.Stat. § 253B.13, subd. 2 (Supp.1985). We hold the statute is constitutional as long as several procedural safeguards are followed.
William G. Harhut, Jr., is a 35-year-old patient at the Faribault State Hospital who is blind and mildly mentally retarded. Displaying autistic behavior at times, he needs assistance in performing basic living skills such as dressing, washing, eating with utensils and other personal care. His condition has existed since birth and he has been a resident at Faribault State Hospital since 1980. In 1984, his mother brought a petition for involuntary commitment in Hennepin County District Court, Mental Health Division.
The district court referee held an initial commitment hearing on February 14, 1985. Adopting the referee's findings, the district court held that Harhut was mentally retarded within the meaning of Minn.Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 14 (1984) and Minn.Stat § 253B.13 and ordered his commitment to the Faribault State Hospital until he acquired sufficient basic living skills to be placed in a community facility. 1 The statutory period of initial confinement is 6 months. Minn.Stat. § 253B.09, subd. 5 (1984).
The review hearing required by Minn.Stat. § 253B.12, subd. 4 was scheduled for April 30, 1985, but, on Harhut's motion, was continued until May 21, 1985. Harhut's counsel moved to dismiss the judicial commitment proceedings on grounds that Minn.Stat. § 253B.13 violates equal protection by providing for indeterminate commitment for mentally retarded persons, but not for mentally ill or chemically dependent persons. At the May 21 district court hearing, Hennepin County petitioned for Harhut's indeterminate commitment. The Faribault State Hospital submitted medical treatment reports concluding that Harhut was mentally retarded to a degree requiring indeterminate commitment at the Faribault State Hospital until he could be placed in a suitable community facility. The court ruled that section 253B.13 did not violate equal protection since the distinction between the nature of mental retardation and that of mental illness or chemical dependency provides a sufficient rational basis for the difference in commitment periods. The court further found that the patient's constitutional rights are adequately protected by Minn.Stat. § 253B.17, which allow; the judicial review of involuntary commitment at anytime on motion of the patient or an interested party. The burden of proof in such judicial review is on the state, the court held, except when the issue is whether a less restrictive alternative treatment facility exists, in which case the burden of proof is on the patient. Harhut was ordered indefinitely committed to the Faribault State Hospital as of June 13, 1985. 2 He appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which granted the motion of the Minnesota Attorney General to intervene.
The court of appeals upheld Harhut's commitment on October 8, 1985. In re Harhut, 374 N.W.2d 798 (Minn.Ct.App.1985). Harhut challenged the sufficiency of the treatment reports on which the district court based its order, but the court of appeals found the documents to be in accordance with statutory requirements. The court further ruled that the difference in commitment periods in section 253B.13 was not a violation of equal protection. The indeterminate commitment provided only for mentally retarded patients was, the court found, rationally related to the legitimate state purpose of training and caring for mentally retarded persons. By request dated October 1, 1985, however, the court referred the constitutional issue to this court by a request for accelerated review. On November 6, 1985, this court approved accelerated review.
While Harhut's appeal is explicitly an equal protection challenge, his arguments also imply a due process challenge to section 253B.13. Subsequent cases have directly raised the due process issue. See In re Desmond, 381 N.W.2d 57 (Minn.Ct.App.1986); In re Frederickson, 376 N.W.2d 736 (Minn.Ct.App.1985). We shall address in this case the constitutionality of section 253B.13 on both equal protection and due process grounds.
The issues raised are:
I. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that treatment facility reports were in accordance with Minn.Stat. § 253B.12 (1984);
II. Whether Minn.Stat. § 253B.13, subd. 2 (Supp.1985) providing indeterminate commitment for mentally retarded patients is constitutional under the equal protection and due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions.
While this issue was not certified by the court of appeals, we have allowed the parties to raise all appropriate issues.
Under section 253B.12, a treatment facility must file a timely report prior to the 6-month review hearing for initial commitment which contains the following information:
Subdivision 1. Report. Prior to the termination of the initial commitment order or final discharge of the patient, the head of the facility shall file a written report with the committing court with a copy to the patient and his counsel, setting forth in detailed narrative form at least the following:
(1) the diagnosis of the patient with the supporting data;
(2) the anticipated discharge date;
(3) an individualized treatment plan;
(4) a detailed description of the discharge planning process with suggested after care plan;
(5) whether the patient is in need of further care and treatment with evidence to support the response;
(6) whether any further care and treatment must be provided in a treatment facility with evidence to support the response;
(7) whether in his opinion the patient must continue to be committed to a treatment facility; and
(8) whether in his opinion the patient satisfies the statutory requirement for continued commitment, with documentation to support the opinion.
Subd. 2. Basis for discharge. If no written report is filed within the required time or if the written statement describes the patient as not in need of further institutional care and treatment, the proceedings shall be terminated by the committing court, and the patient shall be discharged from the treatment facility.
Minn.Stat. § 253B.12, subds. 1-2.
Harhut's counsel argues that the treatment reports required by section 253B.12 were incomplete and not signed by the head of the facility and, therefore, under section 253B.12, subdivision 2, the proceedings should have been terminated and Harhut discharged. Respondent maintains that the reports were complete and adequately authorized. Even if the reports were incomplete, respondent argues, dismissal and discharge would not be the correct remedy. The court of appeals found that the parties who signed the treatment reports were designees of the head of the Faribault State Hospital and, therefore, were statutorily sufficient authority. We agree.
Under Minn.Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 8 (1984), the head of a treatment facility is defined as "the person who is charged with overall responsibility for the professional program of care and treatment of the facility or his designee." (Emphasis added.) As the court of appeals found, the treatment reports were signed by the medical director of the Faribault State Hospital, and testimony supported the finding that the medical director was the designee of the head of the facility. Furthermore, the items required by section 253B.12, subdivision 1 were sufficiently covered in the treatment reports submitted to the district court. Therefore, the court of appeals correctly found that the reports were not in violation of section 253B.12.
Under the Minnesota Commitment Act of 1982, persons found to be mentallyretarded, 3 mentally ill or chemically dependent within the meaning of the statute may, on petition, be involuntarily committed to state guardianship:
If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed patient is a mentally ill, mentally retarded, or chemically dependent person and, that after careful consideration of reasonable alternative dispositions, including but not limited to, dismissal of petition, voluntary outpatient care, informal admission to a treatment facility, appointment of a guardian or conservator, or release before...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olson v. One 1999 Lexus Mn License Plate No. 851ldv Vin: Jt6hf10u6x0079461, A17-1083
...that Mathews is the "proper test for determining whether [a statute] affords all process that is constitutionally due"); In re Harhut , 385 N.W.2d 305, 311 (Minn. 1986) (applying Mathews to a procedural due process challenge to indeterminate civil commitment statute); Machacek v. Voss , 361......
-
Fletcher Props., Inc. v. City of Minneapolis
...have recognized administrative efficiency as a valid reason for a legislative body to distinguish between classes. See In re Harhut , 385 N.W.2d 305, 311 (Minn. 1986) (holding that an indeterminate commitment to state hospitals for mentally disabled individuals was not unreasonable because ......
-
Coffey v. County of Hennepin
...situated be treated alike under the law. See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982); In re Harhut, 385 N.W.2d 305, 310 (Minn.1986). The Court first notes that a disability discrimination claim is subject to rational basis analysis. See City of Cleburne, Texa......
-
Greene v. Com'R Mn Dept. of Human Services
...program under an agreement with the state. A law that differentiates based on race involves a suspect classification. In re Harhut, 385 N.W.2d 305, 310 (Minn. 1986). But when a classification is merely political, we apply rational basis review. Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 554, 94 S.Ct.......
-
Disability Constitutional Law
...Who Seriously Mistreat Their Children: Prevalence, Type and Outcome in a Court Sample, 15 Child Abuse & Neglect 389, 395 (1991)).141. 385 N.W.2d 305, 306 (Minn. 1986).142. See id. at 311.143. Id. Similarly, in Georgia, once an individual with mental retardation is involuntarily committed to......
-
Involuntary Commitment of People With Mental Retardation: Ensuring All of Georgia's Citizens Receive Adequate Procedural Due Process - Laura W. Harper
...Sec. 5123.761(H)(4) (two years) and Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 6500 (one year). 142. Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 17(a)-276(d) (2006). 143. 385 N.W.2d 305 (Minn. 1986). 144. Id. at 306. 145. Id. at 309 (citing Minn. Stat. Ann. Sec. 253B.12 (2003)). 146. Id. at 306, 310. 147. Id. at 310. 148. Id.......