Source: http://masscases.com/cases/distapp/2015/2015massappdiv177.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 21:53:24+00:00

Document:
IN THE MATTER OF P.M.
Karen O. Talley for the respondent.
SWAN, P.J. P.M. has appealed from an order of the Cambridge District Court committing her under G.L. c. 123, §§ 7 and 8, to McLean Hospital (the hospital) for a period of up to six months.
care unit . . . [and] for her to stay would not be in her best interests if that should happen. The trial judge denied the motion to dismiss, conducted the hearing, and issued the order of commitment. P.M. argues that the courts denial of the motion was error.
Wellesley Hosp. v. Magrini, 451 Mass. 777 , 782 (2008), quoting Acting Supt. of Bournewood Hosp. v. Baker, 431 Mass. 101 , 103 (2000), and it is within our discretion to decide an issue which is [moot], where the question is one of public importance, is very likely to arise again in similar circumstances, and where appellate review could not be obtained before the question would again be moot. Acting Supt. of Bournewood Hosp. v. Baker, supra, quoting Attorney Gen. v. Commissioner of Ins., 403 Mass. 370 , 380 (1988). P.M. presents such a case, and we therefore consider the merits.
104 Code Mass. Regs. § 27.08(3).
to dismiss petitions for commitment if prior to a hearing the patient agrees to a conditional voluntary admission. Accordingly, under DMHs own regulation, a patients agreement to a transfer after her earlier objection in effect nullifies the petition for commitment.
We must then address whether the record substantiates P.M.s ultimate agreement to the transfer. The motion to dismiss was not accompanied by an affidavit of P.M. that she no longer opposed the transfer, nor was her written response to the notice of transfer amended to indicate her agreement to it. It would seem to have been easy enough for her to obtain the notice of transfer, cross off the previously checked object to this proposed transfer blank, then check the agree to this proposed transfer blank, and initial the revisions. Both at the hearing on the motion and at oral argument, however, counsel for the hospital conceded that P.M. orally told the hospital that she had changed her mind. That, we conclude, was sufficient to effect her agreement. Thereafter, it was apparent that the [hospital] was without authority to petition for [P.M.s] commitment, and that the District Court judge was without jurisdiction to hear the commitment petition. Acting Supt. of Bournewood Hosp. v. Baker, supra at 105. While the hospitals concern -- that P.M.s change of mind would return her to a further position on the waiting list -- may be compelling, it is not contemplated by statute or regulation as a reason for proceeding with a petition. The motion to dismiss should have been allowed.
P.M.s challenges on appeal to the validity of the DMH regulations and their compliance with G.L. c. 123, § 3, were not raised in the trial court, and we accordingly do not consider them.
___ agree to this proposed transfer.
day notice of transfer requirement.
The section ends with a space for the patient, parent, or guardian to sign and date, or, if the patient refuses to sign, a statement to be signed by a deliverer that a copy of the notice has been given to the patient.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 27
 v. 
 § 3