2019 ME 161
Me.2019Background
- Acadia Hospital applied on Aug. 28, 2018 for a court order admitting S. to a Progressive Treatment Program (PTP) under 34-B M.R.S. § 3873-A.
- A court-appointed psychologist examined S. by telephone and submitted a report that was admitted at the District Court hearing on Aug. 31, 2018.
- The District Court found by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory elements were met and committed S. to Acadia’s PTP for one year.
- S. timely appealed to the Superior Court under Rule 76D; the Superior Court held a hearing on May 16, 2019 and affirmed on May 20, 2019; S. then filed a timely Law Court appeal.
- The Law Court raised mootness sua sponte: the statutory maximum PTP term is 12 months, so the District Court’s order (entered Aug. 31, 2018) had expired before appellate resolution.
- The Law Court considered and rejected mootness exceptions (collateral consequences, public interest, and repetitive/short-duration), found a key statutory issue waived because not raised below, noted S. failed to seek expedition in the Superior Court, and dismissed the appeal as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is moot because the PTP order expired | S. sought appellate review and argued issues warranted review; requested expedited Law Court consideration | Acadia argued the PTP was time-limited and the order expired, making the appeal moot | Appeal is moot and dismissed |
| Applicability of collateral-consequences exception to mootness | Prior involuntary admission can carry collateral consequences justifying review | Statutes do not authorize increased term or other collateral consequences from a prior PTP order | Collateral-consequences exception inapplicable |
| Applicability of public-interest exception to mootness | Statutory interpretation question raised on appeal implicates public interest | Issues are narrow, concern private interests, and are unlikely to provide broadly useful precedent | Public-interest exception inapplicable |
| Whether statutory-interpretation issue may be reached despite mootness (waiver/expedition) | S. raised a statutory-interpretation issue on appeal and requested expedition to the Law Court | Issue was not raised in District Court (waived); S. did not move for expedition in Superior Court despite looming mootness | Issue waived; failure to seek expedition precludes overcoming mootness; Court declines to reach merits |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Steven L., 153 A.3d 764 (Me. 2017) (discussing mootness and exceptions in involuntary commitment/PTP appeals)
- In re Steven L., 86 A.3d 5 (Me. 2014) (establishing exceptions to mootness for short-duration involuntary-commitment matters)
- McMahon v. McMahon, 200 A.3d 789 (Me. 2019) (issues not raised below are waived on appeal)