Tribby v. Cameron
| Decision Date | 14 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 20454.,20454. |
| Citation | 379 F.2d 104 |
| Parties | Willard G. TRIBBY, Appellant, v. Dale CAMERON, Superintendent, St. Elizabeths Hospital, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Perry S. Patterson, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellant.
Mr. John A. Terry, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and William M. Cohen, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Oscar Altshuler, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and TAMM and ROBINSON, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is from an order discharging a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant was committed to St. Elizabeths Hospital in 1960 pursuant to D.C.Code (1961) § 24-301(d), which provides that a person tried on a criminal charge and acquitted solely on the ground that he was insane at the time of the offense shall be confined in a mental hospital.
The Government concedes in its brief that appellant is "receiving little or no treatment; at least this was true at the time of the hearing." During the four months preceding the hearing in the District Court he had seen a psychiatrist "approximately three times" and had not participated in any activities or therapeutic programs other than "environmental therapy." The hospital made no effort to induce him to participate and did not even tell him that any treatment was available. Passivity is a mark of his illness.
In Rouse v. Cameron, 125 U.S.App. D.C. ___, 373 F.2d 451, which we decided October 10, 1966, some months after the District Court entered its order in the present case, we held that a person hospitalized under § 24-301(d) has a "right to treatment" cognizable in habeas corpus. There
This is true here also. As in Rouse, therefore, "`law and justice require' that we remand for a hearing and findings on whether appellant is receiving adequate treatment." If not, the court "may allow the hospital a reasonable opportunity to initiate treatment." And, as in Rouse, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donaldson v. O'CONNOR
...re Curry, 1971, 147 U.S.App.D.C. 28, 452 F.2d 1360; Covington v. Harris, 1969, 136 U.S.App.D.C. 35, 419 F.2d 617; Tribby v. Cameron, 1967, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 327, 379 F.2d 104; Dobson v. Cameron, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 383 F.2d 519; Millard v. Cameron, 1966, 125 U. S.App.D.C. 383, 373 F.2d 27 ......
-
U.S. v. Ecker
...and reasonable decision in view of the relevant information and within a broad range of discretion." Tribby v. Cameron, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 327, 328, 379 F.2d 104, 105 (1967). The underlying question is to be decided not by the court, but by the hospital; and that decision cannot be meaningful......
-
Romeo v. Youngberg
...its function when reviewing action by administrative agencies. The standard of review articulated over a decade ago in Tribby v. Cameron, 379 F.2d 104 (D.C. Cir. 1967), remains valid today: the hospital need not necessarily make the best decision, just a permissible and reasonable one. Inte......
-
Mahoney v. Lensink
...permissible and reasonable in view of the relevant information available and within a broad range of discretion. 23 Tribby v. Cameron, 379 F.2d 104, 105 (D.C.Cir.1967). The issue, under § 17-206c, is whether the hospital made good faith efforts to improve the patient's mental health and not......
-
Mental Disabilities Law Issues
...1. Birnbaum, The Right to Treatment, 46 A.B.A.J. 499 (1960). 2. Rouse v. Cameron, 373 F.2d 451 (D.C. Cir. 1967); Tribby v. Cameron, 379 F.2d 104 (D.D. Cir. 1967). 3. Szasz, The Right to Health, 57 Geo. L.J. 734, 740 (1969). 4. Birnbaum, A Rationale for the Right, 57 Geo. L.J. 752, 774 (1969......