In Re: Vencil, N. Appeal of: Vencil, N.
In Re: Vencil, N. Appeal of: Vencil, N. No. 472 MDA 2014
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 19, 2017Background
- In April 2003 Nancy W. Vencil was involuntarily committed under § 302 of the Mental Health Procedures Act; the commitment record was submitted to the Pennsylvania State Police.
- In February 2012 Vencil petitioned under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111.1(g)(2) to expunge the PSP record by challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the 302 commitment.
- At a de novo trial-court hearing both sides presented evidence: Vencil offered testimony and medical opinions contesting the commitment; Holy Spirit Hospital and Dr. David Petcash offered the contemporaneous evaluation and findings that led to commitment.
- The trial court applied a "clear and convincing" standard (by agreement of the parties) and denied expunction, finding clear and convincing evidence supported the commitment.
- The Superior Court reversed, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocatur, vacated the Superior Court decision, and remanded with instructions limiting review to the physician’s contemporaneous findings and applying a preponderance standard.
- The case was remanded to the trial court to determine, giving deference to the physician as original factfinder, whether the physician’s recorded findings, by a preponderance of the evidence, satisfied the statutory prerequisites for a 302 commitment; if not, the PSP record must be expunged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate standard of proof for § 6111.1(g)(2) review | Vencil: trial court properly used clear and convincing | PSP/Holy Spirit: preponderance should govern | Supreme Court: preponderance of the evidence applies |
| Scope of trial-court review on sufficiency challenge | Vencil: de novo hearing could consider broader evidence | PSP/Holy Spirit: review limited to physician’s contemporaneous record | Supreme Court: review limited to physician’s recorded findings and information relied upon |
| Role of trial court vs. physician findings | Vencil: trial court may weigh all presented evidence | PSP/Holy Spirit: afford deference to physician as original factfinder | Supreme Court: afford deference to physician; treat review as a pure legal question whether recorded findings meet statutory criteria |
| Remedy if evidence insufficient | Vencil: expunge PSP record if commitment not supported | PSP/Holy Spirit: oppose expunction absent recorded support | Supreme Court: if physician’s record does not support statutory prerequisites by preponderance, court must order expunction under § 6111.1(g)(2) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Vencil, 120 A.3d 1028 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Superior Court decision reversing trial court under the standards it applied)
- In re Vencil, 152 A.3d 235 (Pa. 2017) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court clarifying scope of review and applicable preponderance standard)