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 cen颅ter pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law 搂9颅27. Her involuntary commitment is com颅monly known as a "2 PC" commitment made under the Mental Hygiene Law upon the findings of two individual psy颅chiatrists and signed off on by an 鈥渁ppli颅cant鈥 as defined in the statute. Thereaf颅ter, the patient must be seen by a 鈥渢hird confirming鈥 psychiatrist who must then affirm the need for treatment.
The plaintiff was initially seen as a vol颅untary admission at another facility for gastrointestinal complaints but then exhibited manic and psychotic behav颅ior, resulting in the 2PC application. Two psychiatrists at the initial hospital then deemed she was a threat to herself or others, completed the 2PC applica颅tion which was signed by the hospital administrator thus converting her ad颅mission from voluntary to involuntary under the Mental Hygiene Law. Plaintiff鈥檚 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 psychia颅trist who consulted on the case prior to transfer and would serve as the 鈥渢hird confirming鈥 physician.
Plaintiff claimed she never should have been admitted to our client medical cen颅ter in the first place; that her presenta颅tion of lucidity and coherence precluded admission, that the 鈥渢hird confirming鈥 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 鈥榯hird鈥 doctor for whom we maintained we were not re颅sponsible and denied claims of vicari颅ously liability. Plaintiff alleged that our client doctor and medical center staff failed to properly evaluate the patient, failed to take a proper history, and im颅properly administered medications to the patient resulting in her psychotic/ hallucinatory episode at our client hos颅pital along with claims of physical abuse at the hands of attendants.
At trial, which lasted 6 weeks, plaintiff called the plaintiff and her spouse, var颅ious hospital personnel including nurs颅es, orderlies and security guards and as well as an expert in the field of psychi颅atry, whose testimony was taken over 2 days, 2 weeks apart.
We countered with expert testimony and argued that the statute was com颅plied with, that the admission was nec颅essary and that any delay in the 鈥渢hird鈥 examination was both inconsequential and the responsibility of the 鈥渢hird鈥 psy颅chiatrist 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鈥檚 appeal, finding that the claims advanced on ap颅peal were without merit. Specifically, the Court found that the jury鈥檚 determi颅nation 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 evi颅dence presented. In addition, in what appears to be a case of first impression, the Court determined that alleged vio颅lations of the Mental Hygiene Law, even if established, do not give rise to caus颅es 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 mal颅practice claim. The decision from the four judge panel was unanimous.
听
鈥