Petition of Wayne Sawyer
167 A.3d 622
| N.H. | 2017Background
- Wayne Sawyer, eligible for developmental services, was involuntarily admitted under the mental-health statute and housed in the Secure Psychiatric Unit (SPU) until 2014.
- A probate order contemplated his conditional discharge/transfer to Laconia Designated Receiving Facility (Laconia DRF); Sawyer signed an "Agreement Regarding Conditional Discharge."
- Sawyer moved to Laconia DRF (within Lakes Region Community Services — LRCS — territory) and requested to change his developmental area-agency affiliation from Community Bridges (Concord) to LRCS; LRCS denied the request.
- Administrative Appeals Unit (AAU) affirmed LRCS, treating the move as an institutional transfer (not a voluntary relocation/conditional discharge), and held Sawyer had not changed legal residence.
- Supreme Court reviewed whether Sawyer had a right under RSA ch. 171-A and Admin. R. He-M 503.14 to transfer area-agency affiliation; court analyzed interplay between separate statutory schemes for developmental services (RSA ch. 171-A) and mental-health services (RSA ch. 135-C).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sawyer could change his developmental area-agency affiliation under He-M 503.14 | Sawyer: He-M 503.14 entitles him to transfer because he planned to relocate to Laconia DRF | LRCS: He remains involuntarily institutionalized under RSA ch. 135-C; move was an institutional transfer so He-M 503.14 does not apply | Held: He-M 503.14 applies; Sawyer retained separate developmental-services rights and could seek transfer |
| Whether mental-health involuntary admission controls developmental-services rights | Sawyer: Mental-health status does not strip his RSA 171‑A rights to seek changes in developmental services | LRCS: Mental-health institutional status should govern; treat like other institutionalized persons, so prior community remains responsible | Held: The two statutory schemes are independent; RSA 171‑A rights persist despite RSA 135‑C admission |
| Whether Sawyer’s move to Laconia DRF was voluntary (conditional discharge) | Sawyer: Probate order and signed conditional-discharge agreement show informed, voluntary conditional discharge to Laconia DRF | LRCS/AAU: Characterized the move as involuntary transfer, not conditional discharge | Held: Court concluded the probate order, agreement, and circumstances establish a conditional discharge and thus a voluntary move |
| Whether practical burdens on area agencies justify denying transfer | LRCS: Allowing such transfers burdens receiving communities and system funding | Sawyer: Statutory scheme prioritizes individual choice and funding follows the individual per He-M 503.14(c) | Held: Policy or funding concerns are for the legislature; statutory/regulatory scheme governs and supports transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- Petition of Kalar, 162 N.H. 314 (affirming certiorari review scope)
- Petition of Chase Home for Children, 155 N.H. 528 (standards for extraordinary certiorari relief)
- Bach v. N.H. Dep’t of Safety, 169 N.H. 87 (de novo review for statutory/regulatory interpretation)
- N.H. Assoc. of Counties v. Comm’r, N.H. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 156 N.H. 10 (statutory construction principles)
- Grafton County Attorney’s Office v. Canner, 169 N.H. 319 (avoid adding language the legislature did not include)
- In re Gary B., 124 N.H. 28 (distinguishing other statutory schemes—special education context)
- In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698 (interpretation of court orders reviewed de novo)
- Gen. Linen Servs. v. Franconia Inv. Assocs., 150 N.H. 595 (contract/agreement interpretation de novo)
- Dolbeare v. City of Laconia, 168 N.H. 52 (public policy issues reserved to legislature)
- Birch Broad. v. Capitol Broad. Corp., 161 N.H. 192 (standing and harm requirements)
- Duncan v. State, 166 N.H. 630 (standing may be raised sua sponte)