Bayridge Hosp. v. Jackson

2 Citing cases

  1. In re L.C.

    2015 Mass. App. Div. 98 (Mass. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

    It is true that any analysis would discuss the factors we would consider in determining the issue of strict security (treatment requirements, danger to seif or others, etc.); however, the context is specific to the patient, and the evidence to support the legal finding is unique to L.C. In BayRidge Hasp. v. Jackson, 2010 Mass. App. Div. 12, the Appellate Division declined to address the issue of the legal sufficiency of the evidence for commitment, but did address the narrow issue of the authority of an individual to file a petition on behalf of the hospital.

  2. Melrose-Wakefield Hosp. v. H.S

    2010 Mass. App. Div. 247 (Mass. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

    See G.L.C. 123, ยง 7 (a) (authorizing facility director to file petition) and 104 CMR 25.03 (defining facility director). See also BayRidge Hosp.v. Jackson, 2010 Mass. App. Div. 12, 13-14. Second, based on the state of the record before us, see note 5, the evidence consisting of Dr. Welch's testimony and his affidavit supported, however marginally, the required finding for commitment that a person be "placed in reasonable fear of violent behavior and serious harm to them."