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.