Matter of M.K.S., 350 P.3d 27

Respondent M.K.S., diagnosed with schizophrenia, had a long history of community commitments and multiple hospitalizations; Judge Deschamps presided over her matters since 2007.
In Nov 2013 she stipulated to a six-month community commitment; in Jan 2014 law enforcement brought her to the ER after a reported suicidal threat with a knife.
WMMHC crisis worker Thomas Hodgetts recommended emergency detention at Montana State Hospital (MSH); court detained her and appointed Dr. Jay Palmatier as the professional person to evaluate her.
Palmatier evaluated M.K.S. but she refused to cooperate; he did not file the statutorily required written report under § 53-21-123, MCA, but he testified at the Jan 30, 2014 commitment hearing and recommended 90 days at MSH.
The district court committed M.K.S. to MSH for up to 90 days; she appealed solely arguing the absence of the written report violated her due process rights.
The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed, applying plain error review and concluding that although due process was implicated, the absence of the written report did not produce the requisite prejudice to warrant reversal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure of the appointed professional to file a statutorily required written report was plain error	Failure to file the written report violated procedural due process by depriving her of notice of the medical basis and impairing defense preparation	Palmatier testified at the hearing, counsel cross‑examined him, and the court had sufficient information; no objection was made below, so error is not plain	Court: Due process implicated, but no plain error — absence of report was not prejudicial under the circumstances; commitment affirmed

In re Mental Health of L.K.-S., 359 Mont. 191 (2011) (standard of review for civil commitment orders and due process considerations)
In re Mental Health of J.D.L., 348 Mont. 1 (2008) (procedural safeguards in commitment proceedings must be strictly followed)
In re N.A., 371 Mont. 531 (2013) (failure to file report not plain error where parties had effective notice and the professional testified)
In re O.R.B., 345 Mont. 516 (2008) (omission of recommendation in report can be harmless if testimony and other records give adequate notice)
In re R.M., 270 Mont. 40 (1995) (reversal required where no post‑initial evaluation was conducted and no professional was appointed)