Rains v. Belshe
Decision Date | 08 February 1995 |
Docket Number | No. A063119,A063119 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Esther E. RAINS, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. S. Kimberly BELSHE, as Director of the California Department of Health Services, Defendant/Appellant. |
Daniel E. Lungren, Atty. Gen., Charlton G. Holland, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Stephanie Wald, Supervising Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for appellant.
Lilly T. Spitz, Sacramento, for amicus curiae on behalf of appellant.
Morton P. Cohen, Golden Gate University School of Law, Kathleen Lammers, Cal. Law Center on Long Term Care, San Francisco, for respondent.
Wayne S. Braveman, Meryl Macklin, John H. Bogart, Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe, Michael Feuer, William Flanagan, Eric M. Carlson, Bet Tzedek Legal Services, Los Angeles, for amicus curiae on behalf of respondent.
The Legislature enacted in 1992, and amended in 1994, Health and Safety Code section 1418.8. That amended statute generally allows certain incompetent patients residing in skilled nursing facilities or intermediate care facilities to receive medical treatment, after a physician has determined a patient's incapacity to give informed consent to such treatment and an interdisciplinary review team has determined the treatment is medically appropriate. We find this statute as amended to be constitutional, and reverse the trial court's contrary ruling.
This appeal presents solely legal issues concerning the facial constitutionality of Health and Safety Code section 1418.8 1 as last amended. The lower court's ruling of unconstitutionality was directed to section 1418.8 as enacted in 1992. As we explain post, many of petitioner's arguments in the court below as to the statute's claimed deficiencies are inapposite to our facial constitutional review, which must be based upon the provisions of the amended statute. (See Building Industry Assn. v. City of Oxnard (1985) 40 Cal.3d 1, 3, 218 Cal.Rptr. 672, 706 P.2d 285.) The lower court, of course, could not consider the amendments, which were ineffective at the time of its decision. The parties agree that our decision must be based on the amended version of the statute, and have briefed its constitutionality post argument.
The challenged statute provides, after amendment in 1994 (Stats.1994, ch. 791, § 1, No. 9 West's Cal.Legis.Service, pp. 3359-3360; the amendments, including renumbering, are italicized), as follows:
If the requirements of section 1418.8 are met, subdivision (i) thereof removes the need to obtain a court order under the provisions of Probate Code section 3201, which reads as follows: "If a patient [who lacks a conservator of the person] requires medical treatment for an existing or continuing medical condition and the patient is unable to give an informed consent to such medical treatment, a petition may be filed under this part for an order authorizing such medical treatment and authorizing the petitioner to give consent to such treatment on behalf of the patient."
Section 1418.8, as originally enacted, became effective on January 1, 1993. A petition for a writ of mandate (No. A060010) was filed in Division One of this court, seeking to invalidate the statute on constitutional grounds and stay its enforcement. The petition and request for stay were denied in an unpublished order.
The lower court then heard the petition generating this appeal which was filed by Esther E. Rains (petitioner). The trial court's statement of decision concluded that section 1418.8, in its preamended form, was unconstitutional, as violating the constitutional privacy rights and due process rights of nursing home patients who lack capacity to give informed consent to recommended medical intervention. This timely appeal followed from a resulting judgment.
We...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cal. Advocates for Nursing Home Reform v. Smith
...1418.8 "applies only to the relatively nonintrusive and routine, ongoing medical intervention[.]" ( Rains v. Belshé (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 157, 186, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 185 ( Rains ).)Before the statute's enactment, capacity decisions were made in superior court on a petition to determine capaci......
-
Mission Housing Development Co. v. City and County of San Francisco
...Com. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 361, 368, 220 Cal.Rptr. 114, 708 P.2d 693, internal quotation marks & citations omitted; Rains v. Belshe (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 157, 170, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 185.) The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of proving it unconstitutional. (Rain......
-
Aguilar v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc
...and admissions before us, without relying on or giving any dispositive weight to the newspaper article (Rains v. Belshe (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 157, 183, fn. 6, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 185), we are limited to the operative fact that racist epithets were spoken, without knowing what they were.Our concu......
-
People v. Nishi
...objective entitlement founded on broadly based and widely accepted community norms. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” ( Rains v. Belshé (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 157, 173, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 185.) “There is no set formula for determining whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place......
-
Unbefriended and Unrepresented: Better Medical Decision Making for Incapacitated Patients Without Healthcare Surrogates
...32, J. med. ethics (2016), DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2016-103853.364. the right to Die, supra note 34, at § 3.26[C]; Rains v. Belshe, 38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 185, 189 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (seven-month delay in obtaining judicial decision authorizing treatment).365. Jean Callahan et al., Guardianship ......