Nason v. Superintendent of Bridgewater State Hospital

Decision Date05 February 1968
Citation353 Mass. 604,233 N.E.2d 908
PartiesJohn W. NASON v. SUPERINTENDENT OF BRIDGEWATER STATE HOSPITAL.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

William P. Homans, Jr., Boston, for petitioner.

Willie J. Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, CUTTER, KIRK and REARDON, JJ.

CUTTER, Justice.

In Nason v. Commissioner of Mental Health, 351 Mass. 94, 98, 217 N.E.2d 733 this court held that the commissioner could not be compelled by mandamus to make available proper psychiatric treatment to Nason, a patient at Bridgewater State Hospital (Bridgewater). Cases were cited, however, where 'the legality * * * of * * * confinement' had been tested either by habeas corpus or by comparable statutory relief.

Nason now seeks a writ of habeas corpus. His petition contains allegations (confirmed by findings of the special commissioner mentioned below) that he is in custody at Bridgewater in the following circumstances. He was indicated for the murder of his wife on September 12, 1962. 1 On August 24, 1962, pursuant to G.L. c. 123, § 100 (as amended through St.1956, c. 589, § 7), he was committed to Bridgewater for observation. On October 16, 1962, the medical director of Bridgewater concluded that Nason was competent to stand trial. He was returned to the county jail. While confined there, Nason became actively psychotic. He again was sent to Bridgewater on March 15, 1963. There he was determined to be 'not competent to stand trial' and 'in need of further hospitalization.' Pursuant to G.L. c. 123, § 105 (as amended through St.1961, c. 101, § 2; see later amendment by St.1965, c. 80), he was committed on May 23, 1963, to Medfield State Hospital (Medfield). Later the commitment to Medfield was revoked and on June 4, 1963, he was committed to Bridgewater. He is not under sentence for any crime. The principal ground of relief alleged 2 is that 'Bridgewater * * * is so understaffed * * * as not to be able to furnish its patients, including * * * (Nason) the treatment required so that they may have the opportunity to recover from the * * * mental illnesses from which the suffer; the Bridgewater * * * does not have the same medical * * * facilities * * * (as) all other state hospitals under the jurisdiction of the Department of Mental Health'; that the 'staff-patient ratio at Bridgewater * * * falls markedly below the standard of all other state hospitals * * * and that * * * (Nason) is unable to receive any treatment for * * * (his) illness.' Nason further avers that, because at Bridgewater the medical standards 'are substantially less than the standards of other (S)tate hospitals * * * (he) is deprived of the equal protection of the laws,' and that his confinement (while not under sentence for crime) without treatment denies him due process of law.

On February 15, 1967, with the consent of the parties, a single justice referred the case to a special commissioner, who was to have the powers of an auditor whose findings were to be final. The special commissioner on July 21, 1967, filed a comprehensive, thorough report, summarized 1. We first consider the special commissioner's findings. Where the findings have been supplemented by stipulation, this is indicated below.

below. Because, after the report was filed, there were changes (a) in the medical staff and the general treatment methods and facilities at Bridgewater and (b) in Nason's treatment, the parties stipulated certain additional facts. A single justice reserved the case, without decision, upon the pleadings, the special commissioner's report, and the stipulation.

NASON'S CONDITION AND PAST HOSPITAL TREATMENT

Nason is 'suffering from a schizophrenic reaction, chronic * * * type with prominent paranoid features,' is not able to stand trial, and constitutes a danger to himself and to others. Any 'prognosis as to his complete recovery must remain guarded.' If he were to be 'given adequate treatment, his condition could most certainly be expected to improve,' perhaps 'sufficiently to become competent to stand trial.' 3

Nason, while confined in mental institutions, has been constantly at Bridgewater, except for his short stay (May 23 to June 3, 1963) at Medfield. 4 At Bridgewater he has been kept in one or other of two wards, Ward E, the maximum security ward, and Ward F, the intensive care ward, which consists of individual seclusion rooms facing a central passageway. 5 He appears to have received no medication or medical treatment, while in Ward E, prior to June 4, 1963. When in Ward F, he received only the routine treatment given to patients in that ward (see fn. 5). As he became increasingly paranoid, he refused medication and none was given to him. His treatment was 'custodial care; three meals a day and a bed.' He received no individual or group therapy.

In April, 1964, two psychiatrists from the Boston University Law-Medicine Institute, 'engaged in a program of limited intensive care and study' at Bridgewater. They diagnosed Nason as 'a passive aggressive personality, aggressive type.' He then showed no active psychosis. A medical program, 'designed to improve * * * (Nason's) condition' so that he could stand trial, was not fully pursued because the staff was not adequate.

When his condition seemed to improve, his trial was scheduled for January 12, 1965. Acute regression occurred, and Nason remained at Bridgewater.

After January, 1965, Nason refused medication, and, consequently, as before, received substantially no medical treatment, no medication, and no individual or group therapy. In his present condition therapy would be substantially valueless in the absence of medication, forcibly administered if necessary. Late in 1966, Nason was transferred from Ward F to Ward E.

The parties have stipulated that Nason now is 'seen daily,' at least for observation, by the doctor in charge of the intensive treatment ward. He is allowed freedom within Ward E to work during the day. He is being given drug therapy. His progress, if any, is slow.

Proper treatment of Nason would involve the following: (a) tranquilizing and anti-depressant drugs to calm him sufficiently to lead him to accept 'verbal therapy'; (b) intensive psychiatric verbal therapy, for an hour a day, two or three times a week; and (c) after stabilization of his condition, use of a less intensive drug dosage. If Nason's condition can be stabilized, verbal and group therapy will become more valuable. Whether electric shock treatment would help is a subject of medical dispute. With the treatment outlined above, Nason 'could be expected to show marked improvement in a relatively short time.' Drug treatment 'without phychotherapy will merely control the symptoms without * * * achieving any remission of the sickness.'

COMPARISON OF BRIDGEWARTER WITH OTHER STATE HOSPITALS.

Bridgewater, supervised by the Department of Correction, is one of twelve public mental institutions in the Commonwealth. The others are supervised by the Department of Mental Health. Bridgewater has uniformed guards and 'a higher degree of confinement security.' The other institutions have lesser security and only a few 'locked wards and seclusion rooms.' Bridgewater (with a population of 600 persons under indefinite commitment and of about thirty patients under observation) is designed for inmates deemed to constitute a danger to themselves or to others if confined outside of a maximum security setting. '(E)xcept for * * * uniformed guards, locked wards, and * * * seclusion rooms,' Bridgewater offers little. The plant is 'run-down and antiquated' although it is kept 'remarkably clean.' Bridgewater's 'basic inadequacy' is 'a serious lack of adequate professional staffing.' 6 From 1957 to 1966, the patients annually admitted for observation (G.L. c. 123, § 100) have risen from 137 to 454. Because the staff spends most of its time on these patients, little time is left for the others. It 'would be impossible' for the staff existing at the time of the special commissioner's report (especially in view of the administrative demands upon the acting medical director, the best qualified doctor there) to treat the 600 patients at Bridgewater. The staffing situation was 'desperate.' The 'limited' program of Boston University Law-Medicine Institute was a part-time 'pilot project' By contrast, each of the other public mental hospitals is annually inspected by the Department of Mental Health, and its staff and facilities meet Massachusetts licensing requirements (see fn. 7). Each of the eleven hospitals would be better than Bridgewater for treating Nason and would be adequate and suitable to do so. Each other hospital, however, has been 'moving towards an open-door policy and away from * * * locked wards and seclusion rooms' in an effort 'to encourage patients to (make) progress towards out-patient status.' If a patient appears dangerous to others, the policy is to transfer him to Bridgewater. The other eleven hospitals are much more generously staffed than Bridgewater. 8

which dealt with only about fifteen patients in a special ward at a time. It was the 'only program of consistent[353 Mass. 610] treatment for any of the indefinitely committed patients.' 7

PROPRIETY OF A TRANSFER OF NASON

Nason is dangerous and requires a higher degree of security than is normally available at the other institutions. Without adequate treatment his now chronic condition will not improve. Chances of Nason's recovery are about one in four. Except for security considerations there is no reason for keeping 'Nason, or anyone else,' at Bridgewater.

None of the institutions, in the matter of treatment, distinguishes among patients on the basis of whether they have been (a) convicted of crime, (b) charged but not convicted, or (c) placed in custody but not charged. It is the practice to transfer to Bridgewater prisoners under sentence who become mentally ill. The governing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 1 Julio 1976
    ...(M.D.Ala.1971) 325 F.Supp. 781, 784, affd. sub nom. Wyatt v. Aderholt (5th Cir. 1974) 503 F.2d 1305; Nason v. Superintendent of Bridgewater State Hosp. (1968) 353 Mass. 604, 233 N.E.2d 908.)5 A shocking illustration of psychotherapists' inability to predict dangerousness, cited by this cour......
  • Johnson v. Solomon
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 17 Agosto 1979
    ...differences in particular cases but should be reasonably related to the varying circumstances." Nason v. Superintendent of Bridgewater State Hospital, 353 Mass. 604, 233 N.E.2d 908, 913 (1968).47 D. The Harm from Inappropriate Both during the trial and afterwards in their post-trial memoran......
  • Marshall v. Kort
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Colorado
    • 22 Octubre 1984
    ...Coughlin, 364 F.Supp. 686 (N.D.Ill.1973) (habeas hearing required for sex offenders alleging lack of treatment); Nason v. Superintendent, 353 Mass. 604, 233 N.E.2d 908 (1968) (lack of treatment for those incompetent to stand trial cognizable in habeas proceedings); Maatallah v. Warden, 86 N......
  • Donaldson v. O'CONNOR
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 26 Abril 1974
    .... . . it is necessary that the remedial aspect of confinement . . . have foundation in fact.'" Nason v. Superintendent, Bridgewater Hospital, 1968, 353 Mass. 604, 612, 233 N.E.2d 908, 913. This key step in the theory also draws considerable support from, if indeed it is not compelled by, th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Mental Disabilities Law Issues
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 10-4, April 1981
    • Invalid date
    ...Supp. 487 (D.C. Minn. 1974); Nelson v. Heyne, 355 F. Supp. 451 (D.C. N.D. Ind. 1973); and Nason v. Super, of Bridgewater State Hospital, 233 N.E.2d 908 (Mass. 1968). 14. Wyatt v. Aderholt, 503 F.2d 1305 (5th Cir. 1974); Donaldson v. O'Connor, 493 F.2d 507 (5th Cir. 1974), vac. and remanded,......

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