J.H. v. TidalHealth Peninsula, 0754/20

Deputy Howser filed an emergency-evaluation petition; Peninsula Regional (now TidalHealth) admitted J.H. for psychiatric evaluation.
Attending psychiatrist Dr. Murdock provisionally diagnosed a psychotic disorder (paranoid/delusional symptoms); two physicians certified need for inpatient treatment and that J.H. did not want to stay.
The administrative hearing occurred four days after admission; the record lacked a written application for involuntary admission, which the hospital conceded.
At the hearing J.H. (with counsel) denied threats and incapacity; his mother testified to escalating threats, banging on windows, and stopped medications.
The ALJ found the missing written application was a procedural error but not a substantial one, concluded the statutory criteria for involuntary admission were met, and ordered involuntary admission; the circuit court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was lack of a written application a substantial preadmission error requiring release?	The application is mandatory and ensures applicant identity/legitimate interest; without it ALJ lacked authority and protections failed.	Emergency petition, two physician certificates, notices, and the hearing record supplied required protections; lack of form was not prejudicial.	Error occurred but was not substantial; ALJ had authority and J.H. received a full and fair hearing.
Did the Hospital prove statutory grounds for involuntary admission (mental disorder; need for inpatient care; danger; inability/unwillingness to be voluntary; no less restrictive alternative)?	Evidence was insufficient: diagnosis was provisional and drug use could explain psychosis; no proof of imminent danger; alternatives like outpatient care were viable.	Dr. Murdock’s provisional diagnosis, family history, observed delusions/threats, lack of insight, and need for stabilization supported all elements.	Held: Clear and convincing evidence supported all statutory elements; involuntary admission proper.

In re J.C.N., 460 Md. 371 (2018) (framework for preadmission procedural errors and when release is required)
J.H. v. Prince George’s Hosp. Ctr., 233 Md. App. 549 (2017) (error in preadmission procedures does not mandate release absent prejudice to a full and fair hearing)
Mathis v. Hargrove, 166 Md. App. 286 (2005) (definition and standard for clear and convincing evidence)
Williams v. State, 302 Md. 787 (1985) (discussion of the jurisdictional role of charging documents in criminal proceedings)
State v. B.P., 211 P.3d 975 (Or. Ct. App. 2009) (contrasting authority on when threats support a finding of dangerousness)