Summary
The Illinois Supreme Court reviewed the timeliness of an emergency-admission-by-certification petition under sections 3-604 and 3-610 of the Illinois Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code. The court held that the relevant deadlines are triggered by admission pursuant to article VI, rather than by a person’s physical presence in a hospital or earlier medical or psychiatric treatment, and affirmed the commitment order.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the appeal could be reviewed despite expiration of the 90-day involuntary-admission order under the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to mootness.
- When the 24-hour deadline in section 3-610 of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code begins and ends.
- Whether Julie M. was admitted pursuant to article VI before the petition and first certificate were properly executed.
- Whether the 24-hour deadline in section 3-604 applied to Julie M.'s circumstances.
- Whether In re Linda B. required Julie M. to prove in the circuit court that her admission and treatment were involuntary.
Holdings
- The capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception permitted review because the 90-day commitment order was too short to be fully litigated before expiration and there was a reasonable expectation that Julie M. would again face a similar emergency admission.
- The 24-hour deadline in section 3-610 begins upon the respondent's admission pursuant to article VI and ends with execution, not filing, of the second examination and certificate.
- Admission pursuant to article VI occurs no sooner than the proper execution of the petition and first certificate; prior physical presence, medical or psychiatric treatment, or detention does not by itself constitute article VI admission.
- Section 3-604's 24-hour deadline applies only when a respondent is detained under article VI on the basis of a petition alone while awaiting a certificate; it does not apply to Julie M.'s prior treatment or detention.
- In re Linda B. does not place on a respondent a substantive burden to prove that admission, treatment, or detention was involuntary in order to challenge petition timeliness; it applies the settled appellate-record principle that doubts arising from an incomplete record are resolved against the appellant.
Key quotations
“admission is not always limited to physical entry.” (¶ 42)
“until the petition and certificate are properly executed, no legal admission under article VI has occurred.” (¶ 45)
“The 24-hour deadline of section 3-610 starts upon admission of a respondent pursuant to article VI and ends with the proper execution of a second examination and certificate.” (¶ 77)
Factual background
Julie M. was transported to Carle Foundation Hospital on September 14, 2018, after swallowing batteries in an apparent suicide attempt. Carle had no dedicated psychiatric ward, but Julie received coordinated medical and psychiatric care on a medical floor, including psychiatric medication, continuous supervision, and treatment for persistent suicidal ideation. After surgery and removal of her abdominal staples, she was deemed medically appropriate for discharge on October 4, when Carle personnel executed an emergency-admission petition and two certificates; the documents were filed with the circuit court the next morning.
Procedural history
Carle Foundation Hospital presented a petition and certificates seeking Julie M.'s emergency admission by certification on October 4, 2018, and filed them with the circuit court on October 5. The circuit court denied her motion to dismiss for untimeliness and entered a commitment order. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception applied and that Julie had not established that her admission and treatment were involuntary. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, but on different statutory grounds and clarified the scope of In re Linda B.