In re Wyler, 46 A.3d 396

This appeal is technically moot but raises a procedural issue about hospitalizing the mentally ill under the Ervin Act.
A social worker from Washington Hospital Center was offered as an expert but was not voir dired, and the record lacks details on her qualifications.
The trial court excluded the social worker as an expert and dismissed the petition when no psychiatrist or psychologist could testify.
The government appealed the exclusion as a fundamental procedural question about who may testify in involuntary hospitalization proceedings.
The government concedes mootness but seeks review of the procedural framework for admitting mental health expert testimony in future cases.
The court ultimately dismisses the appeal as moot but indicates the issue should be decided on a full developed record in a published opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether social workers can ever qualify as mental health experts for Ervin Act proceedings	Wyler argues the record is insufficient and per se exclusion is improper	District contends licensed social workers may, in some cases, testify as experts	The court leaves the merits for a future appeal with a full record
Whether the government may appeal a procedural ruling under the Ervin Act	Wyler contends there may be no bar to appeal after a verdict	District asserts a narrow channel of appeal for fundamental questions	The government may appeal under the narrow grounds identified (fundamental procedural questions)
Whether the case is moot and therefore cannot reach the merits	Wyler notes mootness; seeks to preserve issue for record-based decision	District acknowledges mootness but argues potential repetition	Appeal dismissed as moot; merits undecided until a full record is available
Whether the record is sufficient to decide the issue on appeal	Wyler argues the record is inadequate to decide qualifications of social workers	District clarifies that full proffer and voir dire are needed for proper ruling	Merits deferred; decision reserved for a future case with a developed record

In re Lomax, 386 A.2d 1185 (D.C.1978) (no right of appeal after a verdict in an involuntary commitment)
In re Johnson, 691 A.2d 628 (D.C.1997) (narrow channel of appeal for fundamental procedural questions in Ervin Act cases)
In re Barlow, 634 A.2d 1246 (D.C.1993) (review when hospital is dismissed on legal grounds; provides review path)
McClain v. United States, 601 A.2d 80 (D.C.1992) (discretion to reach merits in seemingly moot controversies)
Hardesty v. Draper, 687 A.2d 1368 (D.C.1997) (mootness and need for developed record)
Atchison v. District of Columbia, 585 A.2d 150 (D.C.1991) (principles governing discretionary reach to merits in procedural questions)