Opinion
J-A05008-19 No. 903 WDA 2018
04-26-2019
IN RE: PETITION OF M.R.C. v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE APPEAL OF: M.R.C.
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order May 21, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Orphans' Court at No(s): CC No. 638 of 2016 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MURRAY, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.:
Appellant, M.R.C., appeals from the order entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his petition to expunge the record of his involuntary mental health commitment under the Mental Health Procedures Act ("MHPA"). We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts of this case. Therefore, we have no need to restate them. Procedurally, on December 14, 2017, Appellant filed a petition to expunge his involuntary commitment under the MHPA. The court conducted a hearing on Appellant's petition on May 14, 2018, during which the court heard testimony from Appellant and VonZell Wade, PhD, LPC, Appellant's counselor. The court denied Appellant's petition in an order dated May 17, 2018, and entered on May 21, 2018. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on June 19, 2018, and a timely concise statement of errors complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
DID THE [TRIAL] COURT COMMIT REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT OVERRULED APPELLANT'S OBJECTIONS ON THE BASIS OF VIOLATIONS OF THE RULE AGAINST HEARSAY, ADMITTED THE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE OBJECTIONS, AND THEN BASED ITS DECISION ON IMPROPERLY ADMITTED HEARSAY?
DID THE [TRIAL] COURT COMMIT REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IN ITS OPINION THE COURT EVALUATED THE EMERGENCY INVOLUNTARY EXAMINATION OF APPELLANT BASED UPON THE COURT'S MISINTERPRETATION OF THE MHPA'S REQUIREMENTS AND THEN DECIDED THAT THE EMERGENCY INVOLUNTARY EXAMINATION JUSTIFIED TREATMENT BASED UPON THE COURT'S ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF LAW?
DID THE [TRIAL] COURT COMMIT REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO HOLD THAT THE INVOLUNTARY EMERGENCY EXAMINATION AND TREATMENT OF APPELLANT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE EXPLICIT PROCEDURAL MANDATES AND DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS INCLUDED WITHIN THE PENNSYLVANIA MENTAL HEALTH PROCEDURES ACT AND THEREFORE THE INVOLUNTARY EMERGENCY EXAMINATION AND TREATMENT WAS INVALID, AND ILLEGAL, AND WAS A VIOLATION OF [APPELLANT]'S RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW, VOID AB INITIO AND SHOULD BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID AND SHOULD BE VACATED AND ANY AND ALL RECORDS THEREOF EXPUNGED?
DID THE [TRIAL] COURT COMMIT REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO HOLD THAT THE SECTION 302 EXAMINATION AND TREATMENT OF APPELLANT WAS INVALID DUE TO THE EXAMINING PHYSICIAN'S FAILING TO
MAKE A DIAGNOSIS OF MENTAL ILLNESS WITHIN THE EXAMINING PHYSICIAN'S FINDINGS OR STATEMENT OF TREATMENT NEEDED?(Appellant's Brief at 2-3).
DID THE [TRIAL] COURT COMMIT REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO HOLD THAT THE SECTION 302 EMERGENCY EXAMINATION AND TREATMENT OF APPELLANT WAS UNLAWFUL AND INVALID BECAUSE [APPELLANT] WAS NOT A STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED SUBJECT FOR EMERGENCY INVOLUNTARY EXAMINATION AND TREATMENT PURSUANT TO THE PENNSYLVANIA MENTAL HEALTH PROCEDURES ACT BECAUSE [APPELLANT] WAS NOT MENTALLY ILL BUT RATHER WAS EXPERIENCING THE SYMPTOMS OF ALCOHOL WITHDRAWAL?
"Issues not raised in the [trial] court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal." Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). Issues not raised in a Rule 1925 concise statement of errors will likewise be deemed waived. Linde v. Linde Enterprises , Inc., 118 A.3d 422, 430 (Pa.Super. 2015), appeal denied, 634 Pa. 736, 129 A.3d 1243 (2015) (citing Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii)). "Rule 1925(b) waivers may be raised by the appellate court sua sponte." Commonwealth v . Hill , 609 Pa. 410, 427, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (2011). If a concise statement is too vague, the court may find waiver and disregard any argument. Commonwealth v. Reeves , 907 A.2d 1, 2 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 591 Pa. 712, 919 A.2d 956 (2007). Here, Appellant did not raise his second appellate issue, which asserts the trial court misinterpreted the MHPA, before the trial court and in his Rule 1925(b) statement. Therefore, Appellant's second issue is waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); Linde , supra.
Our review of this appeal implicates the following principles: "Our well-settled standard of review in cases involving a motion for expunction is whether the trial court abused its discretion." In re Keyes , 83 A.3d 1016, 1022 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied, 627 Pa. 766, 101 A.3d 104 (2014) (citing Commonwealth v. A.M.R., 887 A.2d 1266, 1268 (Pa.Super. 2005)).
Sections 7301 and 7302 of the MHPA deal with involuntary emergency examination and treatment of individuals; Section 7301 provides in relevant part:
§ 7301. Persons who may be subject to involuntary emergency examination and treatment
(a) Persons Subject.—Whenever a person is severely mentally disabled and in need of immediate treatment, he may be made subject to involuntary emergency examination and treatment. A person is severely mentally disabled when, as a result of mental illness, his capacity to exercise self-control, judgment and discretion in the conduct of his affairs and social relations or to care for his own personal needs is so lessened that he poses a clear and present danger of harm to others or to himself.
(b) Determination of Clear and Present Danger.—(1) Clear and present danger to others shall be shown by establishing that within the past 30 days the person has inflicted or attempted to inflict serious bodily harm on another and that there is a reasonable probability that such conduct will be repeated. If, however, the person has been found incompetent to be tried or has been acquitted by reason of lack of criminal responsibility on charges arising from conduct involving infliction of or attempt to inflict substantial bodily harm on another, such 30-day limitation shall not apply so long as an application for examination and treatment is filed within 30 days after the date of such determination or verdict. In such case, a clear and present danger to others may be shown by establishing that the conduct charged in the criminal proceeding did occur, and that there is a reasonable probability that such conduct will be repeated. For the purpose of this section, a clear and present danger of harm to others may be demonstrated by proof that the person has made threats of harm and has committed acts in furtherance of the threat to commit harm.
(2) Clear and present danger to himself shall be shown by establishing that within the past 30 days:
(i) the person has acted in such manner as to evidence that he would be unable, without care, supervision and the continued assistance of others, to
50 P.S. 7301(a), (b)(1)-(2)(i). Section 7302 provides:satisfy his need for nourishment, personal or medical care, shelter, or self-protection and safety, and that there is a reasonable probability that death, serious bodily injury or serious physical debilitation would ensue within 30 days unless adequate treatment were afforded under this act....
* * *
§ 7302. Involuntary emergency examination and treatment authorized by a physician—not to exceed one hundred twenty hours
(a) Application for Examination.—Emergency examination may be undertaken at a treatment facility upon the certification of a physician stating the need for such examination; or upon a warrant issued by the county administrator authorizing such examination; or without a warrant upon application by a physician or other authorized person who has personally observed conduct showing the need for such examination.
* * *
(2) Emergency Examination Without a Warrant.—Upon personal observation of the conduct of a person constituting reasonable grounds to believe that he is severely mentally disabled and in need of immediate treatment, and physician or peace officer, or anyone authorized by the county administrator may take such person to an approved facility for an emergency examination. Upon arrival, he shall make a written statement setting forth the grounds for believing the person to be in need of such examination.
(b) Examination and Determination of Need for Emergency Treatment.—A person taken to a facility shall be examined by a physician within two hours of arrival in order to determine if the person is severely mentally disabled within the meaning of section 301 and in need of immediate treatment. If it is determined that the person is severely mentally disabled and in need of emergency
treatment, treatment shall be begun immediately. If the physician does not so find, or if at any time it appears there is no longer a need for immediate treatment, the person shall be discharged and returned to such place as he may reasonably direct. The physician shall make a record of the examination and his findings. In no event shall a person be accepted for involuntary emergency treatment if a previous application was granted for such treatment and the new application is not based on behavior occurring after the earlier application.
(c) Notification of Rights at Emergency Examination.—Upon arrival at the facility, the person shall be informed of the reasons for emergency examination and of his right to communicate immediately with others. He shall be given reasonable use of the telephone. He shall be requested to furnish the names of parties whom he may want notified of his custody and kept informed of his status. The county administrator or the director of the facility shall:
(1) give notice to such parties of the whereabouts and status of the person, how and when he may be contacted and visited, and how they may obtain information concerning him while he is in inpatient treatment; and
(2) take reasonable steps to assure that while the person is detained, the health and safety needs of any of his dependents are met, and that his personal property and the premises he occupies are secure.
50 P.S. § 7302(a)(2), (b)-(d) (internal footnote omitted).
(d) Duration of Emergency Examination and Treatment.—A person who is in treatment pursuant to this section shall be discharged whenever it is determined that he no longer is in need of treatment and in any event within 120 hours....
* * *
Involuntary commitment under Section 7302 is proper "where there are 'reasonable grounds to believe a person is severely mentally disabled and in need of immediate treatment.'" In re Jacobs , 15 A.3d 509, 510 (Pa.Super. 2011) (quoting In re Hancock , 719 A.2d 1053, 1055 (Pa.Super. 1998)). "[I]t is not sufficient to find only that the person is in need of mental health services. It must also be established that there is a reasonable probability of death, serious injury or serious physical debilitation to order commitment." In re R.F., 914 A.2d 907, 913-14 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 593 Pa. 741, 929 A.2d 1162 (2007) (citing In re T.T., 875 A.2d 1123 (Pa.Super. 2005), appeal denied, 584 Pa. 702, 882 A.2d 1006 (2005)). "[E]xpungement of civil commitment records (be they generated in a hospital or court context) are required if they originated as a result of an illegal proceeding subsequently declared null and void[.]" Id. at 909 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Additionally, "a trial court has broad discretion with regard to the admissibility of evidence, and is not required to exclude all evidence that may be detrimental to a party's case." Schuenemann v. Dreemz , LLC , 34 A.3d 94, 102 (Pa.Super. 2011). "To constitute reversible error, an evidentiary ruling must not only be erroneous, but also harmful or [unduly] prejudicial to the complaining party." Ettinger v. Triangle-Pacific Corp., 799 A.2d 95, 110 (Pa.Super. 2002), appeal denied, 572 Pa. 742, 815 A.2d 1042 (2003). Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 801 defines hearsay as follows:
Rule 801. Definitions That Apply to This Article
(a) Statement. "Statement" means a person's oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the
person intended it as an assertion.Pa.R.E. 801. Generally, hearsay is inadmissible, except as provided by the rules of evidence, other Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules, or by statute. Pa.R.E. 802.
(b) Declarant. "Declarant" means the person who made statement.
(c) Hearsay. "Hearsay" means a statement that
(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and
(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.
* * *
Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 803(6) sets forth the business records exception to the hearsay rule, as follows:
Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness
The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:
* * *
(6) Records of regularly conducted activity. A record (which includes a memorandum, report, or data compilation in any form) of an act, event or condition if:
(A) the record was made at or near the time by—or from information transmitted by—someone with knowledge;
(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a "business," which term includes
business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit;Pa.R.E. 803(6). Importantly, Section 6104 of the Judicial Code governs the admissibility of records of government actions as follows:
(C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;
(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 901(11) or (12) or with a statue permitting certification; and
(E) the opponent does not show that the source of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.
§ 6104. Effect of official records generally42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6104. Section 6103 addresses the authentication of official records, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) General rule.—A copy of a record of governmental action or inaction authenticated as provided in section 6103 (relating to proof of official records) shall be admissible as evidence that the governmental action or inaction disclosed therein was in fact taken or omitted.
(b) Existence of facts.—A copy of a record authenticated as provided in section 6103 disclosing the existence or nonexistence of facts which have been recorded pursuant to an official duty or would have been so recorded had the facts existed shall be admissible as evidence of the existence or nonexistence of such facts, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.
§ 6103. Proof of official records
(a) General rule.—An official record kept within this
Commonwealth by any court, magisterial district judge or other government unit, or an entry therein, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by that officer's deputy, and accompanied by a certificate that the officer has the custody. The certificate may be made by any public officer having a seal of office and having official duties with respect to the government unit in which the record is kept, authenticated by the seal of that office, or if there is no such officer, by:
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6103(a).(1) The Department of State, in the case of any Commonwealth agency.
(2) The clerk of the court of common pleas of the judicial district embracing any county in which the government unit has jurisdiction, in the case of any government unit other than a Commonwealth agency.
With these principles in mind, and after a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Michael E. McCarthy, we conclude Appellant's remaining issues merit no relief. The trial court comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of Appellant's first, third, fourth, and fifth questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, dated August 13, 2018, at 3-9) (finding: (1) Allegheny County Department of Human Services' certification of involuntary mental health commitment form per Section 6103 of Judicial Code rendered form admissible as official record per Section 6104 of Judicial Code, despite Appellant's hearsay objection; (3) police officers who transported Appellant to hospital observed his conduct; Appellant failed to argue officers did not observe him; (4-5) process by which Appellant was involuntarily committed complied with requirements of MHPA Section 302; examining physician made timely and informed recommendation to commit Appellant per MHPA Section 302 based upon physician's observation Appellant had suffered paranoia, was severely mentally disabled, and required mental health treatment; psychologist Appellant retained, Paul Bernstein, Ph.D., noted in his August 2014 report Appellant's September 2013 behavior properly resulted in commitment per Section 302, and stated Appellant "exhibits mild psychological problems"; Appellant's treating counselor, Dr. Wade, testified that Appellant is currently "on a continuum of recovery," indicating Appellant had more problematic past condition). The record supports the trial court's decision and will not be disturbed on the grounds asserted. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
To the extent Appellant attempts to argue in his third issue that the police officers who transported him to the hospital improperly completed the Section 302 involuntary mental health commitment application, that claim is waived because Appellant failed to raise it before the trial court and in his Rule 1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); Linde , supra ; Reeves , supra. --------
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/26/2019
Image materials not available for display.