In Re T.B. Appeal of T.B., 113 A.3d 1273

On Nov. 26, 2008 T.B. went to Jefferson Regional Medical Center for treatment of facial lacerations after self‑cutting; his mother expressed suicidal concerns and completed a MHPA §7302(a) application later that day.
A warrant (a "302") was authorized at 1:21 p.m.; a physician examined T.B. at 1:30 p.m., and he was involuntarily committed for the 120‑hour statutory period.
T.B. was released on Nov. 30, 2008.
On Jan. 30, 2014 T.B. petitioned to expunge records and vacate the commitment, arguing the physician did not examine him within two hours of his arrival at the hospital (he arrived at 9:15 a.m.).
The Orphans’ Court held that, when a person is already at a facility voluntarily, the two‑hour examination period in 50 P.S. §7302(b) begins when the 302 is authorized; because the warrant was authorized at 1:21 p.m. and the exam was at 1:30 p.m., the commitment was valid.
This appeal challenges whether the statutory two‑hour protection was triggered at hospital arrival (9:15 a.m.) or at warrant authorization (1:21 p.m.).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does the §7302(b) two‑hour physician‑examination period begin for a person already at a facility?	T.B.: it begins at actual arrival (9:15 a.m.), so examination at 1:30 p.m. was beyond two hours and made the commitment void.	Commonwealth/Allegheny County: for persons already at the facility voluntarily, the two‑hour period begins when the 302 is authorized, so the 1:30 p.m. exam was timely.	Court affirms Orphans’ Court: two‑hour period begins at 302 authorization when person is already at facility; commitment valid.

Wolfe v. Beal, 384 A.2d 1187 (Pa. 1978) (unlawful commitment entitles person to destruction of hospital records)
In re R.F., 914 A.2d 907 (Pa. Super. 2006) (court records originating from an illegal commitment must be expunged)
Commonwealth v. J.T., 420 A.2d 1064 (Pa. Super. 1980) (continued existence of records from illegal commitment injures reputation)
Spahn v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 977 A.2d 1132 (Pa. 2009) (statutory construction is a question of law reviewed de novo)
Allstate Life Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth, 52 A.3d 1077 (Pa. 2012) (statutory sections must be read together to ascertain legislative intent)