St. Joseph Hospital v. Kuyper

Opinion

WALLIN, J. Facts

The California Legislature enacted the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPSA) in 1967. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.)1 The LPSA instituted new procedures for involuntary detention and treatment of persons who are mentally disordered, developmentally disabled or impaired by chronic alcoholism. Orange County does not have a county hospital suitable for this purpose. Therefore, private hospitals have been designated by the county to serve as evaluation and treatment facilities under the LPSA. The hospitals [1088]are St. Joseph Hospital of Orange, Hoag Memorial-Presbyterian, Brea Hospital Neuropsychiatric Center and University of California Irvine Medical Center. All are petitioners in this action except U.C. Irvine, which intervened on the side of the petitioners. These hospitals customarily receive payment from patients rather than from state or county funds.

Whether a facility is publicly or privately owned, the procedure for involuntary confinement is the same. A person who is a danger to himself or herself or others, or gravely disabled may be taken into custody and placed in a designated facility for 72 hours. During the 72-hour period an evaluation is made. If the attending professional staff finds, “[t]he person is, as a result of mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism, a danger to others, or to himself, or gravely disabled,” then he or she may be certified for up to 14 days of involuntary intensive treatment. (§ 5250.) The allegations of danger or disability must be set forth in a written certification notice. (§ 5252.)

Every person certified for intensive treatment has a right to judicial review by a petition for habeas corpus in the superior court. (§ 5275.) The person requesting release is entitled to a court-appointed attorney. When habeas corpus hearings under sections 5275-5276 are held in Orange County, a deputy sheriff brings the petitioner from the private hospital to the court.

The issue in these habeas corpus hearings is whether, “the person requesting release is not, as a result of mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism, a danger to others, or to himself, or gravely disabled.”2 (§ 5276.) In the past the court did not require attorneys to present evidence supporting the allegations' of danger or disablement. The private hospitals simply had professional staff members present the evidence. Now the court has advised the hospitals that unless an attorney presents the evidence supporting certification the habeas petitioner will be released immediately. The respondents have refused to appear in these habeas corpus hearings when the person requesting release is confined at a private hospital. As a result, the petitioner hospitals are forced to retain private counsel to present the evidence.3