In Re: Contempt of Wabash Valley Hospital

In Re: Contempt of Wabash Valley Hospital Thanks to Kemplog for the catch.

This case is pretty interesting. The Jasper Superior Court held two administrators of the Wabash Valley Hospital in contempt for refusing to abide by an emergency committment order of the court requiring that an individual be committed somewhere. (The order was apparently blank as to the committee’s destination, but the Jasper County Sheriff orally advised Wabash Valley that the order was intended for their facility.) The judge held contempt proceedings, and when the prosecutor made its prima facie case, the judge then apparently refused to let the hospital administrators testify as to their decision not to commit the person. (Though the prosecutor apparently argued on appeal that the hospital’s attorney did not offer its witnesses vociferously enough — a slightly ridiculous argument, imho, though I wasn’t there, so maybe I just don’t understand what the situation was.)

Declining to hear testimony from hospital officials at the contempt hearing deprived the hospital of due process. Due process requires not only notice of the basis for the alleged contempt but also an opportunity to be heard on the record to address the allegations. Harper, 809 N.E.2d at 350.
The trial court’s decision to limit the hospital’s testimony was based on its erroneous view that the hospital would not be able to provide any evidence that would excuse its non-compliance with the order. The trial court’s belief that the hospital could have no excuse for declining to admit P.H. was grounded on an improper understanding of the law governing emergency detentions, as discussed in the previous section of this opinion.

The trial court had determined, apparently, that Wabash Valley was not entitled to decline the court’s order. The Court of Appeals reviewed the statutes and determined that the supervisor of Wabash Valley could decline admission on the basis of a lack of capacity. The majority of the court determined that a court could review the supervisor’s decision to determine whether the decision was made properly. Judge Kirsch, however, had to write separately to express his reservations about trial courts second guessing the supervisors’ decisions.

In making the determination regarding the admission of a patient subject to an emergency detention order, the superintendent of a community mental health center must balance a myriad of concerns. These range from issues of patient and staff safety to economic and liability concerns to compliance with the requirements and standards of regulatory bodies and accrediting organizations. Moreover, this balancing must occur almost instantaneously under the pressure of the moment presented by the emergency detention order. In making such calls, superintendents should not face being second guessed in contempt proceedings before trial courts themselves under the pressure of a difficult emergency placement. Allowing trial courts to hold superintendents in contempt for exercising their discretion to decline admission to an emergency detention detainee allows the courts to do indirectly what they cannot do directly — make the ultimate determination regarding admission.