Sastrom v. Psychiatric Sec. Review Bd.

• Decision Date: 27 March 2007
• Docket Number: No. 27329.,27329.
• Citation: 100 Conn.App. 212,918 A.2d 902
• Parties: Roy SASTROM v. PSYCHIATRIC SECURITY REVIEW BOARD.
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals

918 A.2d 902

100 Conn.App. 212

Roy SASTROM v. PSYCHIATRIC SECURITY REVIEW BOARD.

No. 27329.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued January 8, 2007.

Decided March 27, 2007.

Richard E. Condon, Jr., assistant public defender, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Patrick B. Kwanashie, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Richard J. Lynch, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (defendant).

SCHALLER, GRUENDEL and HARPER, Js.

SCHALLER, J.

The plaintiff, Roy Sastrom, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his appeal from the decision of the defendant, the psychiatric security review board. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider his claim that § 17a-581-44 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies¹ is invalid because it conflicts with General Statutes § 17a-599.² We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The record reveals the following undisputed facts and procedural history relevant to the issues in the plaintiff's appeal. On July 11, 1994, the plaintiff was committed to the jurisdiction of the defendant for a period of time not to exceed forty years after he was acquitted by reason of mental disease or defect of the charges of two counts of harassment in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-182b(a), four counts of threatening in violation of General Statutes § 53a-62(a)(2), and two counts of attempt to commit larceny in the fifth degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 and 53a-125a. The plaintiff initially was confined at the Whiting Forensic Division of Connecticut Valley Hospital (Whiting), a maximum security mental health facility, but subsequently was transferred to the less restrictive setting of the Dutcher Enhanced Security Service of Connecticut Valley Hospital (Dutcher). While at Dutcher, he was moved from South 2, the enhanced treatment unit, to North 3, a community transition unit.

On June 21, 2002, the treatment team granted the plaintiff's request for "Level 4" privileges, which included one hour per day on the grounds without supervision. On July 4, 2002, the plaintiff signed himself out at 9 a.m., and was declared absent without leave when he was not present one hour later. The plaintiff had wandered to a nearby wooded area near the hospital and fallen asleep. The next morning, as he was walking back to Dutcher, several staff members reported seeing him on a road. When a state police trooper arrived, the plaintiff hid in some bushes. After several hours, the troopers, with the aid of a police dog, located the plaintiff and returned him to the custody of the defendant.

Following his apprehension, the plaintiff was returned to Whiting. The defendant held a hearing on July 12 and September 20, 2002, regarding the proper placement of the plaintiff. In a memorandum of decision dated October 28, 2002, the defendant ordered that the plaintiff remain confined at Whiting for the purposes of care, custody and treatment under maximum security conditions.

In a petition for a declaratory judgment dated March 30, 2004, the plaintiff sought a determination of whether his confinement in maximum security was appropriate and whether § 17a-581-44 was invalid in light of the specific violence requirement of § 17a-599. After a hearing, the defendant issued a decision on September 30, 2004. The defendant noted the plaintiff's clinical progress and found that, on the basis of the hospital treatment team's recommendation, he could be treated in the less restrictive conditions at Dutcher.³

The defendant concluded that the plaintiff could not prevail with respect to his claim that § 17a-581-44 was invalid because it conflicted with § 17a-599. The defendant determined that "nothing in the statute suggests that its intent is to mandate actual violence as a prerequisite for placing acquittees in maximum security settings. Rather, the statute evinces a concern that acquittees be placed in settings appropriate to the type of danger that they pose to themselves and others. Thus, far from being in conflict with the statute . . . § 17a-581-44 complements it."

The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court, challenging the defendant's decision. The defendant responded that there was no statutory right to appeal from its decision, and, therefore, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The defendant principally relied on Dyous v. Psychiatric Security Review Board, 264 Conn. 766, 826 A.2d 138 (2003). The plaintiff countered that Dyous was factually and procedurally distinguishable. The court agreed with the defendant and concluded that it was without subject matter jurisdiction because the decision being appealed was not within the exclusive list of appealable orders set forth in General Statutes § 17a-597. Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal.

On appeal to this court, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly dismissed his appeal from the declaratory ruling of the defendant that § 17a-581-44 does not impermissibly conflict with § 17a-599. We begin by setting forth our standard of review. "[B]ecause [a] determination regarding a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, our review is plenary. . . . [T]he question of subject matter jurisdiction, because it addresses the basic competency of the court, can be raised by any of the parties, or by the court, sua sponte, at any time.... Subject matter jurisdiction involves the authority of the court to adjudicate the type of controversy presented by the action before it. . . . [A] court lacks discretion to consider the merits of a case over which it is without jurisdiction. . . ." (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Commissioner of Transportation v. Larobina, 92 Conn.App. 15, 28-29, 882 A.2d 1265, cert. denied, 276 Conn. 931, 889 A.2d 816 (2005); see also Nine State Street, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 270 Conn. 42, 45, 850 A.2d 1032 (2004).

Our Supreme Court has "declared that [t]here is no absolute right of appeal to the courts from a decision of an administrative agency.... Appeals to the courts from administrative [agencies] exist only under statutory authority . . . . Appellate jurisdiction is derived from the . . . statutory provisions by which it is created . . . and can be acquired and exercised only in the manner prescribed. . . . In the absence of statutory authority, therefore, there is no right of appeal from [an agency's] decision. . . ." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Fullerton v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 280 Conn. 745, 760, 911 A.2d 736 (2006); Chatterjee v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, 277 Conn. 681, 688, 894 A.2d 919 (2006). A review of the statutory framework at issue, therefore, will facilitate our discussion.

"Judicial review of an administrative decision generally is governed by [General Statutes] § 4-183(a) of the [Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), General Statutes § 4-166 et seq.], which provides that [a] person who has exhausted all administrative remedies . . . and who is aggrieved by a final decision may appeal to the Superior Court . . . . [General Statutes §] 4-186, however, carves out exemptions to § 4-183(a). Specifically, § 4-186(f) provides that [t]he provisions of section 4-183 shall apply to the [defendant] in the manner described in [General Statutes §] 17a-597. . . . Accordingly, appeals from the decisions of the [defendant] are governed by § 17a-597(a), which provides that [a]ny order of the board entered pursuant to subdivision (2) or (3) of [General Statutes §] 17a-584 [or pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-587] . . . may be appealed to the Superior Court pursuant to section 4-183. Section 17a-584 requires the board, at any hearing considering the discharge, conditional release, or confinement of an acquittee, to make a finding as to the mental condition of the acquittee and: (1) to recommend that the acquittee be discharged; (2) to order the acquittee conditionally released; or (3) to order the person confined in a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities. . . . Finally, § 17a-599 provides that [a]t any time the court or the board determines that the acquittee is a person who should be confined, it shall make a further determination of whether the acquittee is so violent as to require confinement under conditions of maximum security." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Dyous v. Psychiatric Security Review Board, supra, 264 Conn. at 774-75, 826 A.2d 138.

In Dyous, which involved an order pursuant to § 17a-599, our Supreme Court concluded that "there is no administrative appeal from the decision of the [defendant] transferring [an acquittee] to a maximum security facility." Id., at 775, 826 A.2d 138. The court reasoned that the language of § 17a-597(a) clearly and unequivocally limited the right to appeal to orders entered pursuant to subdivision (2) or (3) of § 17a-584 or pursuant to § 17a-587. Id. An order made pursuant to § 17a-599 is not enumerated as an appealable order. Id. The court further stated that "it was logical for the legislature to provide for a right to appeal from a confinement decision but not from the decision as to the appropriate placement of the acquittee. Thus, the placement of the acquittee, in a maximum security mental health facility or in a facility like Dutcher, requires knowledgeable decisions based upon, inter alia, the appropriateness and type of treatment the acquittee requires and the potential for risk of harm to the staff and other acquittees. These decisions are best left to the professional discretion of the board, whose mandate is the protection of the general public." Id., at 777, 826 A.2d 138.

It is axiomatic that we are bound by the Dyous decision.⁴ The plaintiff, therefore, presents several reasons why the present case is...