From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Carter

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Oct 26, 1995
665 A.2d 991 (D.C. 1995)

Opinion

No. 94-FM-403.

Submitted October 5, 1995.

Decided October 26, 1995.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE, TRIAL JUDGE.

John E. Williams, Washington, DC, was on the brief for appellant.

Garland Pinkston, Jr., Acting Corporation Counsel at the time, Charles L. Reischel, Deputy Corporation Counsel, and Sonia A. Bacchus, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Washington, DC, were on the brief for appellee.

Before WAGNER, Chief Judge, and SCHWELB and FARRELL, Associate Judges.


Appellant, a civilly committed patient confined in the John Howard Pavilion, Ward 9, of Saint Elizabeths Hospital, requested an order of the Superior Court directing his transfer to a less restrictive confinement alternative in the Hospital. Hospital officials opposed the transfer because of what they viewed as a continuing pattern of delusional and dangerous behavior exhibited by appellant. The trial court denied the application.

The role of the court in reviewing such decisions by hospital authorities is limited. It is set forth in decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit binding on this court. Upon our review of the record, including the reports and testimony of Doctors Ganz and Gordon, we agree with the trial court that the hospital authorities "made a permissible and reasonable decision in view of the relevant information and within a broad range of discretion," Tribby v. Cameron, 126 U.S.App. D.C. 327, 328, 379 F.2d 104, 105 (1967), in concluding that a transfer of appellant from maximum security confinement to a less restrictive alternative was inappropriate at the time in question. We further agree with the trial court "that the hospital has considered and found inadequate all relevant alternative dispositions within the hospital." Covington v. Harris, 136 U.S.App.D.C. 35, 42, 419 F.2d 617, 624 (1969).

By "the time in question" we mean as of the date of the hearing and the Superior Court's ruling. Appellant subsequently eloped from Saint Elizabeths. While the Hospital, through the Office of Corporation Counsel, informs us that he has since returned to the Hospital, we do not know the security level of his present confinement. For purposes of this decision, we assume that he is again confined in a maximum security ward.

The order of the Superior Court is, accordingly,

Affirmed.


Summaries of

In re Carter

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Oct 26, 1995
665 A.2d 991 (D.C. 1995)
Case details for

In re Carter

Case Details

Full title:In re Rico CARTER, Appellant

Court:District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Date published: Oct 26, 1995

Citations

665 A.2d 991 (D.C. 1995)