Defense Verdict in Mental Hygiene Law and Medical Malpractice Case Upheld on Appeal

Defense Verdict in Mental Hygiene Law and Medical Malpractice Case Upheld on Appeal

Partner Michael J. Boranian successfully secured a defense verdict in a case involving a plaintiff who claimed that she was wrongfully involuntarily committed to a New York community medical cen­ter pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law §9­27. Her involuntary commitment is com­monly known as a "2 PC" commitment made under the Mental Hygiene Law upon the findings of two individual psy­chiatrists and signed off on by an “appli­cant” as defined in the statute. Thereaf­ter, the patient must be seen by a “third confirming” psychiatrist who must then affirm the need for treatment.

The plaintiff was initially seen as a vol­untary admission at another facility for gastrointestinal complaints but then exhibited manic and psychotic behav­ior, resulting in the 2PC application. Two psychiatrists at the initial hospital then deemed she was a threat to herself or others, completed the 2PC applica­tion which was signed by the hospital administrator thus converting her ad­mission from voluntary to involuntary under the Mental Hygiene Law. Plaintiff’s health insurance policy would not cover psychiatric care and treatment at the initial hospital, and therefore, it was necessary to have plaintiff transferred to a facility where she could be cared for and at which she would be covered. Ultimately, an available bed was found at our client defendant medical center. She was transferred to the psychiatric floor under the service of a psychia­trist who consulted on the case prior to transfer and would serve as the “third confirming” physician.

Plaintiff claimed she never should have been admitted to our client medical cen­ter in the first place; that her presenta­tion of lucidity and coherence precluded admission, that the “third confirming” examination was unduly delayed and violative of the statute in question. and that it was malpractice and a breach of her civil rights to confine her at our client medical center. Plaintiff makes claims of medical malpractice against our client and the ‘third” doctor for whom we maintained we were not re­sponsible and denied claims of vicari­ously liability. Plaintiff alleged that our client doctor and medical center staff failed to properly evaluate the patient, failed to take a proper history, and im­properly administered medications to the patient resulting in her psychotic/ hallucinatory episode at our client hos­pital along with claims of physical abuse at the hands of attendants.

At trial, which lasted 6 weeks, plaintiff called the plaintiff and her spouse, var­ious hospital personnel including nurs­es, orderlies and security guards and as well as an expert in the field of psychi­atry, whose testimony was taken over 2 days, 2 weeks apart.

We countered with expert testimony and argued that the statute was com­plied with, that the admission was nec­essary and that any delay in the “third” examination was both inconsequential and the responsibility of the “third” psy­chiatrist who was a private physician. The jury returned a verdict in favor of our client and plaintiff appealed.

The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment and denied plaintiff’s appeal, finding that the claims advanced on ap­peal were without merit. Specifically, the Court found that the jury’s determi­nation that our client hospital did not depart from accepted medical practice at the time it rendered its verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evi­dence presented. In addition, in what appears to be a case of first impression, the Court determined that alleged vio­lations of the Mental Hygiene Law, even if established, do not give rise to caus­es of action in medical malpractice. It stated the statute does not establish a standard of care breach of which would establish a required element of a mal­practice claim. The decision from the four judge panel was unanimous.