Ramsay v. Santa Rosa Medical Center

• Decision Date: 13 June 1973
• Docket Number: No. 15172,15172
• Citation: 498 S.W.2d 741
• Parties: Wayne RAMSAY, Appellant, v. SANTA ROAS MEDICAL CENTER et al., Appellees.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 741

498 S.W.2d 741

Wayne RAMSAY, Appellant, v. SANTA ROAS MEDICAL CENTER et al., Appellees.

No. 15172.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas San Antonio.

June 13, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 12, 1973.

Wayne Ramsay, pro se.

Thomas H. Sharp, Jr., Groce, Locke & Hebdon, Paul M. Green, Lang, Cross, Ladon, Boldrick & Green, San Antonio, for appellees.

BARROW, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of dismissal under Rule 170(c), ¹ after appellant willfully refused to produce his personal diary for In camera inspection as ordered by the trial court after a hearing of appellees' motion for discovery under Rule 167.

Appellant filed this suit against appellees, Santa Rosa Medical Center, Dr. Wade Lewis and Dr. James Bailey, to recover damages because of the alleged denial of rights provided under the Texas Mental Health Code, Article 5547--86, Vernon's Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. On May 15, 1969, appellant, then twenty years of age, was hospitalized at the Santa Rosa Medical Center under an Order for Protective Custody initiated by his parents and issued by the County Civil Court at law of Bexar County. He alleged that Dr. Bailey, acting under authority delegated to him by Dr. Lewis, as head of the hospital, illegally denied him freedom to communicate with persons outside of the hospital, including legal counsel and a psychologist. Appellant sought actual damages of $1,000 and punitive damages of $4,000.

Appellant expressly sought to restrict the claim asserted herein because of his suit pending in the United States District Court against Dr. Bailey, the judge of the Bexar County Civil Court at Law, and other parties, wherein he challenges the constitutionality of the Texas Mental Health Code, and seeks other relief. ² There is pending in said federal action appellant's motion for leave to amend his action to join Dr. Lewis and the Santa Rosa Medical Center as defendants, and to incorporate the cause of action asserted herein.

Appellees learned from pleadings filed by appellant in the federal court case, and from the oral deposition taken of appellant, that appellant had kept a personal diary for several years prior to May 15, 1969, and further, that appellant was of the opinion that his parents had him hospitalized after reading said diary. Appellees then moved, under Rule 167, to discover the diary subject to In camera inspection by the trial court to determine if any of same was relevant and material. Appellant, then a law student, represented himself and took the position that the court was constitutionally prohibited from compelling him to produce his diary. He said: 'I have wanted to litigate for years that particular issue, the issue of whether or not I have a right to keep a private record of my own life that I make every day.' Appellant admitted that the diary was in his possession but said he would not produce same.

After a hearing, the court stated that any entries in the diary which showed appellant's mental condition prior to admission would be relevant, and that the motion would be granted to this extent. At this point, appellant suggested that the court should dismiss the case so that he could appeal. Appellant asked for a few days to consider the question, which was granted, and at the subsequent hearing, he suggested that a fine for contempt would be the proper remedy, rather than dismissal. He stated, however, that he would refuse to produce the diary for In camera examination by the trial court to determine if any of same was relevant. After it was finally determined that appellant willfully refused to produce said diary, the trial court entered the order of dismissal and appellant timely perfected this appeal.

Appellant asserts two assignments of error. He first urges that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering appellant to produce his diary, and, furthermore, the court is constitutionally without power to do so. A substantial part of appellant's brief relates to the merits of the case rather than to the issue of discovery. He urges that a person has a constitutional right to think about anything, including suicide. Further, he suggests that there is no such condition as mental illness; and, in any event, mental hospitals do not serve any useful purpose to the patient. These matters more properly relate to the constitutional questions he raises in his federal court case. Under his second point, appellant asserts that even if the diary is subject to discovery, the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the lawsuit after appellant refused to produce said diary.

Under Rule 167, the trial court may order any party in the case to produce, and permit the inspection of, documents which constitute or contain evidence material to the matter involved in the action. There is no statutory privilege of a diary. Furthermore, no question of self-incrimination is involved, in that appellant does not claim the entries would incriminate him in any way. See 1 McCormick & Ray, Texas Practice, Chapter 7, Topic 1 (2d...