In re Bauman
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01089-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-20-2004 Opinion Author: Bridges, P.J. Holding: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Involuntary commitment - Mootness doctrine - Medical reports - Section 41-21-61 (e) - Financial responsibility - Section 41-17-1 Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, Irving and Myers, JJ. Dissenting Author : Griffis, J. Dissent Joined By : Southwick, P.J., and Chandler, J. Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-19-2003 Appealed from: Kemper County Chancery Court Judge: Edward C. Prisock Disposition: THE TRIAL COURT FOUND BAUMAN TO BE IN NEED OF INPATIENT MENTAL TREATMENT AND ORDERED INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT. Case Number: 2003-0050 |
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Involuntary commitment - Mootness doctrine - Medical reports - Section 41-21-61 (e) - Financial responsibility - Section 41-17-1 |
| Summary of the Facts: | John Briggs, Jr., filed an affidavit and application for commitment alleging that Kenneth Bauman was a person mentally ill as defined by law. Weems Mental Health Center was appointed and directed to perform a pre-evaluation screening into the mental condition of Bauman as required by statute. Following the pre-evaluation screening, Bauman was also examined by two physicians. The chancellor found by clear and convincing evidence that Bauman constituted a danger to himself and was in need of inpatient mental treatment. However, due to lack of immediate available space at the East Mississippi State Hospital, the chancellor ordered that Bauman be temporarily held at the Willowbrook Mental Health Facility in Columbus. Bauman was discharged from Willowbrook Mental Health Facility, and the certificate of discharge was filed in the Kemper County Clerk's Office three days after Bauman filed his notice of appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Mootness doctrine Bauman argues that the case should not be considered moot as it is a matter of public interest and falls within the purview of the "capable of repetition yet evading review" doctrine. This exception is limited to situations where the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subject to the same action again. Briggs, a close cousin of Bauman, resides in Kemper County, Mississippi, as does Bauman's aunt, with whom he also resided. Thus, there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subject to the same action. Also, the case involves a question affecting the public interest. Therefore, Bauman’s appeal will be entertained. Issue 2: Medical reports Bauman argues that he did not meet the definition in section 41-21-61 (e) for a mentally ill person for an involuntary commitment. Bauman was examined by two doctors who both stated that Bauman posed a substantial likelihood of harm to himself and that he should be committed to a treatment facility. This was sufficient medical evidence to meet the statutory requirements for Bauman to be committed. Issue 3: Financial responsibility Bauman argues that there was no authority for the chancellor to determine in advance that the facility was full, that a private facility must be used, and that Bauman may then be made financially responsible initially for the payment of the costs of such a commitment to a private facility. Under section 41-17-1, all costs should be assessed to Kemper County. Bauman did not voluntarily commit himself and was released prior to undergoing the usual treatment prescribed for patients of this kind. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
