NY Court of Appeals Eyes Mental Health Patients' Right to Counsel
The case, according to an attorney for the individual, could set a precedent for other mental health patients retained in facilities who commonly ask that their attorney be present during treatment planning meetings.
January 08, 2019 at 05:22 PM
6 minute read
An attorney for the state argued before the New York Court of Appeals on Tuesday that a convicted sex offender confined at a mental health facility in the North Country should not have a categorical right to have an attorney present at meetings to help develop a treatment plan.
The case, according to an attorney for the individual, could set a precedent for other mental health patients retained in facilities who commonly ask that their attorney be present during treatment planning meetings.
It's a rare instance of litigation between two state agencies, brought by the Mental Hygiene Legal Service, a state agency, against the Office of Mental Health on behalf of a convicted sex offender currently committed to the St. Lawrence Psychiatric Center. MHLS provides legal representation for individuals receiving services for a mental disability, regardless of that person's criminal history.
The individual, referred to by the court and litigants as D.J., was adjudicated as a dangerous sex offender, which required him to be confined under a section of the state's mental hygiene law. The law also required officials to develop a treatment plan for him. Part of developing that plan included meetings with D.J., who was also allowed under the statute, Mental Hygiene Law §29.13(b), to have either an “authorized representative” or “significant individual” present.
The question for the Court of Appeals is whether the individual's attorney from MHLS qualified as the individual's “authorized representative” or “significant individual.” Neither is clearly defined under the statute.
D.J. had asked that his attorney from MHLS be allowed to attend his treatment meetings, but officials at the psychiatric center said counsel was not legally entitled to attend and that the presence of such a person could be counterproductive to his treatment. The denial prompted the lawsuit from D.J. and MHLS.
St. Lawrence Supreme Court Justice Mary Farley dismissed the lawsuit, saying the state's mental hygiene law does not give attorneys with MHLS the right to attend treatment planning meetings. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed that decision and said those attorneys qualify as neither an “authorized representative” nor “significant individual” under the statute.
Shannon Stockwell, who argued before the Court of Appeals on behalf of D.J. and MHLS, said the statute was intended to allow the patient to choose who they wanted with them at meetings, whether they be counsel or another individual. Stockwell is deputy director of MHLS in the Third Judicial Department.
“I think they're entitled to liberal construction. They're meant to protect the interests of disabled individuals,” Stockwell said. “I think when [the statute] was amended to include the term 'significant individual,' if you look at the legislative history, the assemblyman who introduced the legislation specifically indicated that the intent was to allow patients to select any individual of his or her choosing.”
Associate Judge Eugene Fahey questioned the purpose of having an attorney present in a meeting intended to develop a medical treatment plan for an individual's mental health.
“That would be great, as if you were his mother, wife, brother, sister, or someone like that,” Fahey said. “But an attorney is going to come in and give medical advice?”
Stockwell said the kind of advice the attorney would be giving in a treatment meeting would not necessarily be about the patient's health. It would be about their history and preferences, he argued.
“It's not medical advice. Our clients typically aren't new to the mental health system by the time they end up in a mental hygiene facility,” Stockwell said. “They may have been on a multitude of medications over the years and have had a conversation with us.”
Kathleen Treasure, an assistant solicitor general who argued on behalf of the Office of Mental Health, said the state is not necessarily against allowing attorneys to be present at meetings as an individual's “authorized representative” or “significant individual.” Its position, according to Treasure, is to have those requests decided individually, rather than allowing attorneys to take on that role without question.
“I think it has to be a case-by-case analysis because the commissioner and the facility are charged with taking care of, and the treatment of, the individual and they have to look at, what are the facts here in appointing this person as a significant individual,” Treasure said. “MHLS, here, is asserting a blanket right. So, that's what we're objecting to.”
Treasure said there have been instances in the past where an attorney was allowed to attend a treatment meeting and later told the patient not to cooperate with the state's plan for them. That outcome is more likely if an attorney is always allowed to attend those meetings, Treasure said.
Stockwell, meanwhile, warned the court about the possible consequences of its decision if it prohibits attorneys from serving as someone's “significant individual” or “authorized representative.” He said it could have an unintended impact on other individuals who already have an attorney attend treatment meetings.
“I would just point out to the court that the Appellate Division's holding is not limited to secure treatment facilities. It's a pretty broad brush interpretation of our enabling statute,” Stockwell said. “I would submit that if we're unable to attend treatment planning meetings in all other mental hygiene facilities, it would be a disaster in terms of MHLS and how we're serving our clients. We go to treatment meetings all day throughout the state.”
A decision in the case is expected to be handed down in February.
READ MORE:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump Win Ignites Global Legal Market: Lawyers Prepare for High Demand & Uncertainty
Judge Orders Rudy Giuliani to Court Amid Allegations He's Hiding Assets Under Receivership
'A Regressive Institution': SDNY Judge Rakoff Delivers Pointed Remarks on SCOTUS in Recent Appearance
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250