Court Opinion

ID: 9744208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:56:52.669484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:47.511780
License: Public Domain

RILEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The statements that Hurt made while involuntarily committed to the Evansville State Hospital were released in violation of federal statutes and were erroneously admitted at trial.
On March 3,1994, Hurt was transferred to Evansville State Hospital. The admission planning report included the following treatment recommendations:
1. Maintaining the patient within the hospital so his behavior can be observed and controlled.
2. Encouraging the patient to accept responsibility for his past activities and encouraging him to make any [restitution] possible to the victims.
(R. 330).
On June 2,1994, Ralph H. Nichols, a member of Hurt’s treatment team, reported that the treatment modalities to be employed included a “Rehab Program” which, based on Hurt’s diagnosis, could only mean an alcohol rehabilitation program. It was also the impression of the treating hospital that while Hurt was on medication and- “not involved in alcohol” that Hurt represented no dangerous behaviors to himself or others. Further, it was reported that, given Hurt’s history of alcohol problems and limited awareness for need of medication alternatives, placement outside the hospital seemed “less likely.” (R. 331).
It seems clear to me that because the Logansport State Hospital had diagnosed Hurt as an alcoholic in 1982 and he had a limited awareness of his need for medication, the method in which Evansville State Hospital intended to treat his alcohol abuse was to “maintain the patient within the hospital.” This recommendation, however limited, is a treatment for his alcohol-related behavior.
The second recommendation made by the hospital is one of the cardinal tenets of treatment under the Alcoholics Anonymous program. When discharged from Logansport State Hospital in 1983,, part of Hurt’s discharge planning included attendance at A.A. meetings and continuance of lithium.
Although the court found that Hurt’s primary admission or commitment was for paranoid schizophrenia, his history of alcohol *1220abuse and the initial diagnosis of alcoholism is the primary reason for his inpatient status. If he were not an alcoholic, his treatment options may have included an open unit or even placement outside the hospital with monitoring of medication. (R. 755).
It is obvious to me that the hospital maintained Hurt’s records “in connection with the performance of any program or activity relating to substance abuse education, prevention, training, treatment, rehabilitation or research.” 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2(a). His hospitalization prevented him from abusing alcohol and his treatment included that he “accept responsibility for his past activities,” which is consistent with treatment for alcoholism. In addition, on June 24, 1994, a Treatment Plan Summary was written that included a “rehab program” as one of the treatment modalities to be employed. (R. 332).