Source: http://masscases.com/cases/distapp/2015/2015massappdiv174.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 10:54:57+00:00

Document:
IN THE MATTER OF M.C.
Richard F. Ready for the petitioner.
Devorah A. Borenstein for the respondent.
COVEN, J. In this case, we determine that the case is moot as to M.C. However, the case raises an issue of public importance, and we elect to address the issue raised in this case.
and, after hearing, M.C. was civilly committed on August 14, 2014. Approximately six weeks later, on September 29, 2014, M.C. was discharged.
We agree that the clinical finding of the attending psychiatrist as to the capacity of M.C. to remain on a conditional voluntary status is specific to M.C. and is unique to this particular case. In this context, this case is not capable of repetition and can have no precedential value; it is moot. See In Re: Commitment of K.R., 2012 Mass. App. Div. 229 .
Yet the actual legal issue presented is not unique to M.C. Rather, the issue affects potentially all individuals who apply for conditional voluntary admission to a hospital. The rights of the mentally ill are classic examples of issues that are capable of repetition, yet evading review. Acting Supt. of Bournewood Hosp. v. Baker, 431 Mass. 101 , 103 (2000), quoting Guardianship of Doe, 391 Mass. 614 , 618 (1984). Where the issue is of public importance, very likely to arise again, and is likely not to obtain appellate review before becoming moot, we will exercise our discretion and address the issue. Id.
Statutory and regulatory framework. General Laws c. 123, § 10(a), allows a hospital to receive and retain on a voluntary basis any person who is in need of mental health care and treatment. Generally, any person who is admitted pursuant to § 10(a), may leave the facility at any time. See G.L. c. 123, § 11. However, § 11, also authorizes a hospital to require from an admitted person a three-day notice of intent to leave. Id. This three-day notice allows the hospital to conduct an evaluation of the persons suitability for discharge.
The regulations further provide that, after review, the person conducting the review shall prepare a full and complete record of all information presented at such review, including medical evidence or information, the reasons for a determination that a patient requires continued care and treatment at the facility, and the consideration given to alternatives to continued hospitalization. Id. at § 27.11(6)(a).
As we have stated, we find that the hospital was compliant in documenting the results of the review, and the record establishes a sufficient clinical reasoning for the rescission of M.C.s conditional voluntary status. However, we find that the record does not support a finding that the hospital complied with the regulation concerning notice to M.C. of an intent to conduct a competency evaluation on M.C.s ability to remain at the hospital on a conditional voluntary status.
The Department of Mental Health regulations require a hospital, [p]rior to the periodic review, to give reasonable advance written notice to a patient of the intended review. See id. at § 27.11(2). There is no evidence in the record that M.C. was provided with written notice. Compliance is both procedural and substantive. It gives notice and allows an individual, such as M.C., to understand that an exchange between the individual and a senior reviewing clinician is not merely for treatment, but may impact the freedom of the individual. The required notice places the individual on awareness of the seriousness of the evaluation.
With the hospital having failed to follow its own procedural requirements as contained in the regulations of the Department of Mental Health, the motion to dismiss should have been allowed.
The order of commitment is vacated.
[Note 2] Section 27.06 of 104 Code Mass. Regs. does not explicitly require an admitting or treating physician [to] assess the persons capacity to understand that: (i) the person is agreeing to stay or remain at the hospital, G.L. c. 123, § 11, but the requirement is implicit. The remaining statutory requirements are embodied in 104 Code Mass. Regs. 27.06(1)(b), (5), and (6).
[Note 3] The term is not defined in the regulation. M.C. does not raise as an issue the authority of the attending psychiatrist to act.

References: v. 
 § 10
 § 10
 § 11
 § 11
 § 27
 § 27
 § 11