McGraw v. Hansbarger, No. 15676

CourtSupreme Court of West Virginia
Writing for the CourtMcGRAW
Citation171 W.Va. 758,301 S.E.2d 848
PartiesPatsy McGRAW, etc. v. L. Clark HANSBARGER, M.D., etc., et al.
Decision Date31 March 1983
Docket NumberNo. 15676

Page 848

301 S.E.2d 848
171 W.Va. 758
Patsy McGRAW, etc.
v.
L. Clark HANSBARGER, M.D., etc., et al.
No. 15676.
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
March 31, 1983.

Page 851

[171 W.Va. 760] Syllabus by the Court

1. The Director of the Department of Health has an affirmative duty to provide a comprehensive program for the care, treatment and rehabilitation of alcoholics.

2. The Department of Health is required to accept all alcoholics who are involuntarily committed.

[171 W.Va. 761] 3. When a judicial officer issues an order remanding a defendant to the custody of the Department of Health as a danger to himself or others, the department has a duty to see that the defendant is placed forthwith in an appropriate mental health facility.

4. "It is the obligation of the State to provide the resources necessary to accord inmates of State mental institutions the rights which the State has granted them under [W.Va.Code § 27-5-9]." Syllabus Point 3, E.H. v. Matin, 168 W.Va. 248, 284 S.E.2d 232 (1981).

5. Inpatient services are an essential element of care which community mental health centers are required to provide within the center or on a written contractual basis with another facility. Community mental health centers are the facility of first choice for the examination of involuntarily committed patients. If not available locally, examination may be performed by referral to other appropriate facilities, but published procedures must be in effect to insure the smooth and expeditious referral of patients.

6. W.Va.Code § 60-3-9c has dedicated profits accruing from the sale of alcoholic liquors for the care, treatment and rehabilitation of alcoholics.

7. Where a special fund is created or set aside by statute for a particular purpose or use, it must be administered and expended in accordance with the statute, and may be applied only to the purpose for which it was created or set aside, and not diverted to any other purpose or transferred from such authorized fund to any other fund.

8. "Funds derived ... for a particular purpose shall be expended for that purpose and for no other .... And where such funds have been diverted through error, mandamus will lie, on a proper showing, to restore the funds to the purpose for which levied, and to correct the error." Syllabus, in part, State ex rel. Cook v. Lawson, 110 W.Va. 258, 157 S.E. 589 (1931).

9. The dedicated revenue collected pursuant to W.Va.Code § 60-3-9c is constitutionally impressed with the nature of a trust which prohibits the expenditure of such dedicated revenue for any purpose other than the care, treatment and rehabilitation of alcoholics.

10. Once the budget becomes law, it is the governor's duty to see that it is faithfully executed.

11. The Director of the Department of Health has the duty to assure the admission of all persons for detoxification services at community health centers without regard to their ability to pay for such services.

Charles R. Garten, Charleston, for petitioner.

David Patrick Lambert and Silas B. Taylor, Asst. Attys. Gen., Charleston, for respondent.

James T. Kratovil, Kratovil & Kratovil, Weston, amicus curiae.

McGRAW, Chief Justice:

In this original proceeding in mandamus, the petitioner, the Honorable Patsy McGraw, seeks to compel the Director of the Department of Health, Dr. L. Clark Hansbarger, to provide detoxification and alcoholism treatment programs at community mental health centers, and to compel the Commissioner of the West Virginia Department of Finance and Administration, Arnold Margolin, to make funds available

Page 852

for the provision of such services. The petitioner further prays for a writ to compel the respondents to take such further action as is necessary to assure that the proper treatment and services are provided.

The events precipitating this litigation occurred on the evening of August 4, 1982, when Charles Canterbury was taken into custody for public intoxication by Cedar Grove police officers and was brought into Kanawha County Magistrate Court, the petitioner herein presiding. Upon presentation before the petitioner, one of the arresting officers completed an application for the involuntary hospitalization of Canterbury for purposes of examination, pursuant to W.Va.Code § 27-5-2 (1980 Replacement Vol.). The application stated that the officer[171 W.Va. 762] believed Canterbury to be an alcoholic who would be likely to injure himself or others if allowed to remain at liberty.

Subsequently, the petitioner telephoned the Shawnee Hills Detoxification and Residential Treatment Center (Shawnee Hills), a community mental health center funded through the West Virginia Department of Health, and informed a staff member there that she was sending Canterbury to Shawnee Hills for examination. The petitioner then issued a detention order pursuant to W.Va.Code § 27-5-2(4) (Cum.Supp.1982), directing that Canterbury be taken to Shawnee Hills for a mental status examination. In accordance with the order, a Kanawha County Deputy Sheriff transported Canterbury to Shawnee Hills.

Upon arrival at Shawnee Hills, Canterbury was examined by Joe Deegan, the crisis therapist on duty that evening, who found Canterbury to be intoxicated, belligerent, and homicidal. Following the examination, Deegan telephoned Dr. John Patrick Hutton, the clinical director of Shawnee Hills, and informed him of the results of the examination. Based upon the information given him by Deegan, Dr. Hutton determined that Canterbury could not be admitted to Shawnee Hills in light of the homicidal tendencies he exhibited. Shawnee Hills has no secure facilities to house patients dangerous to themselves or others.

Dr. Hutton then telephoned the petitioner to inform her that Canterbury could not be admitted to the Shawnee Hills treatment center. Dr. Hutton recommended that Canterbury be taken to the emergency room at the Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC) for examination by a physician, and offered to telephone CAMC so that they would be prepared for Canterbury's arrival. Pursuant to an agreement between CAMC and Shawnee Hills, CAMC provides screening and inpatient services for patients who cannot be admitted to Shawnee Hills.

Thereafter, Canterbury was returned to the magistrate courtroom by a Kanawha County Deputy Sheriff. The petitioner then issued a second detention order directing that Canterbury be taken to CAMC. At CAMC, the examining physician found Canterbury to be an alcoholic, potentially homicidal, and in need of immediate hospitalization. However, because CAMC also lacks a secure facility to house dangerous patients, Canterbury was denied admission. The examining physician recommended that Canterbury be committed to Spencer State Hospital for detoxification and observation. Canterbury was eventually committed involuntarily to Spencer State Hospital on August 6, 1982.

The petitioner raises four grounds for relief in her petition. First, she alleges that respondent Hansbarger has failed to supervise the resources provided to West Virginia community mental health centers resulting in insufficient inpatient services and other alcoholism treatment in violation of W.Va.Code § 16-1-10(19) (1979 Replacement Vol.). The petitioner further alleges that respondent Hansbarger's failure to supervise such resources to provide inpatient services is also a violation of his duty under W.Va.Code § 27-2A-1 (1980 Replacement Vol.) requiring the establishment of comprehensive community mental health centers. Third, the petitioner alleges that respondent Margolin and State Treasurer Larrie Bailey have failed to make funds available for the treatment of alcoholism as mandated by W.Va.Code § 60-3-9c (1977

Page 853

Replacement Vol.). Finally, the petitioner alleges that respondent Hansbarger has a duty to assure admission of all persons for detoxification services without regard to their ability to pay for such services.

Accordingly, the petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus directing respondent Hansbarger "to assure the provision of detoxification and alcohol treatment services through the monies afforded to Community Mental Health Centers through the Department of Health," and directing respondent Margolin "to provide monies for such purpose from the monies designated for alcoholism ... treatment and to take such further action as will assure the proper treatment and services are provided."

A rule to show cause was issued by this Court on September 28, 1982, made returnable[171 W.Va. 763] on December 14, 1982, on which date arguments were heard. On December 16, 1982, this Court issued an order based upon the pleadings, the briefs and arguments of counsel, and upon the numerous depositions filed with the Court, granting the petitioner a writ of mandamus for reasons to be stated in this written opinion. The order also granted interlocutory relief prior to the filing of the Court's written opinion, directing respondent Hansbarger to

provide immediately and forthwith to every Sheriff, Magistrate, and Municipal Police Court Judge in each county of the State, the name, address, and telephone number of an officer or employee of the Department of Health to whom Magistrates and Municipal Judges can, at any hour of the day or night, direct the Sheriff or other officer to transport public inebriates, chronic alcoholics, and other intoxicated persons for purposes of refuge, detention, examination, and where necessary, detoxification ....

McGraw v. Hansbarger, No. 15676 (W.Va. Dec. 16, 1982) (order granting writ of mandamus). The order further required respondent Hansbarger to file by December 31, 1982, a written report of the actions he had taken to comply with the Court's ruling. Such report was filed on December 30, 1982.

The issues raised in this proceeding are an outgrowth of this Court's decision in Harper v. Zegeer, 170 W.Va. 743, 296 S.E.2d 873 (1982). In Harper we held that the criminal punishment of chronic alcoholics for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • STATE EX REL. v. Tomblin, No. 27905.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • March 26, 2001
    ...to spending units as to how certain monies have been allocated for use during the ensuing fiscal year. See McGraw v. Hansbarger, 171 W.Va. 758, 768, 301 S.E.2d 848, 858 (1983) ("The budgetary appropriation process provides the means by which ... dedicated revenue... may be withdrawn from ........
  • Bray v. Department of State, Docket No. 65164
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • December 1, 1983
    ...Bd., 165 Okl. 188, 25 P.2d 70 (1933); Brookings v. Associated Developers, Inc., 280 N.W.2d 97 (S.D.,1979); McGraw v. Hansbarger, W.Va., 301 S.E.2d 848, 857-858 (1983); 81A C.J.S. States, Sec. 228, p. 798; 42 Am.Jur., Public Funds, Sec. 79; 14 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, (3d ed.), Sec......
  • Jackson v. Putnam County Bd. of Educ., No. 33038.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • May 24, 2007
    ...16-5D-17 [2003]. In West Virginia Citizens Action Group, Inc. v. Daley, 174 W.Va. 299, 324 S.E.2d 713 (1984) and in McGraw v. Hansbarger, 171 W.Va. 758, 301 S.E.2d 848 (1983), this Court took judicial notice of the regulations promulgated by the Board of Health that govern the licensing of ......
  • Y.A. by Fleener v. Bayh, No. 49A05-9311-CV-421
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 8, 1995
    ...Retarded Citizens v. Dep't of Developmental Servs. (1985), 38 Cal.3d 384, 211 Cal.Rptr. 758, 696 P.2d 150; McGraw v. Hansbarger (1983), 171 W.Va. 758, 301 S.E.2d Unlike the statutes in the foregoing cases, the provisions at issue here evince a clear intent by the legislature to limit mental......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • STATE EX REL. v. Tomblin, No. 27905.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • March 26, 2001
    ...to spending units as to how certain monies have been allocated for use during the ensuing fiscal year. See McGraw v. Hansbarger, 171 W.Va. 758, 768, 301 S.E.2d 848, 858 (1983) ("The budgetary appropriation process provides the means by which ... dedicated revenue... may be withdrawn from ........
  • Bray v. Department of State, Docket No. 65164
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • December 1, 1983
    ...Bd., 165 Okl. 188, 25 P.2d 70 (1933); Brookings v. Associated Developers, Inc., 280 N.W.2d 97 (S.D.,1979); McGraw v. Hansbarger, W.Va., 301 S.E.2d 848, 857-858 (1983); 81A C.J.S. States, Sec. 228, p. 798; 42 Am.Jur., Public Funds, Sec. 79; 14 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, (3d ed.), Sec......
  • Jackson v. Putnam County Bd. of Educ., No. 33038.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • May 24, 2007
    ...16-5D-17 [2003]. In West Virginia Citizens Action Group, Inc. v. Daley, 174 W.Va. 299, 324 S.E.2d 713 (1984) and in McGraw v. Hansbarger, 171 W.Va. 758, 301 S.E.2d 848 (1983), this Court took judicial notice of the regulations promulgated by the Board of Health that govern the licensing of ......
  • Y.A. by Fleener v. Bayh, No. 49A05-9311-CV-421
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 8, 1995
    ...Retarded Citizens v. Dep't of Developmental Servs. (1985), 38 Cal.3d 384, 211 Cal.Rptr. 758, 696 P.2d 150; McGraw v. Hansbarger (1983), 171 W.Va. 758, 301 S.E.2d Unlike the statutes in the foregoing cases, the provisions at issue here evince a clear intent by the legislature to limit mental......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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