State Of Washington, V. L.h., 81523-7

L.H. was initially placed under a 14-day involuntary treatment order under the Involuntary Treatment Act (ITA); Cascade petitioned for a 90-day commitment.
At the 90-day commitment hearing a Cascade clinician, Claire Coetzer, testified and read aloud multiple medical chart notes written by other Cascade staff describing L.H.’s threatening and aggressive behavior during the 14-day period.
L.H. stipulated that the notes were admissible as business records but objected on Fourteenth Amendment due process grounds, arguing he had a right to confront and cross-examine the notes’ authors. He clarified he was not asserting a Sixth Amendment claim.
The trial court admitted the testimony, reserved whether it could be considered, then applied the Mathews factors and overruled L.H.’s due process objection, finding procedural safeguards and state interests outweighed the added value of requiring note authors to testify.
The court based its 90-day commitment in part on the chart-note testimony; L.H. appealed alleging a due process violation. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the Mathews balancing favored the State and that existing safeguards reduced the risk of erroneous deprivation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fourteenth Amendment due process requires the authors of medical chart notes admitted via a testifying clinician to appear for cross-examination at an ITA 90-day commitment hearing	L.H.: due process entitles him to confront and cross-examine the authors when the notes are used to prove an element of commitment	State: existing ITA safeguards (counsel, access to records, cross-examination of witnesses who testify, heightened burden of proof) plus administrative burdens make requiring every author to testify unnecessary	Court: No absolute confrontation right; Mathews balancing favored the State because existing safeguards reduced the risk of erroneous deprivation and the State’s interests weighed heavily
Whether Vitek v. Jones compels a broader confrontation right in civil commitment contexts	L.H.: Vitek supports a confrontation right in civil commitment-related hearings	State: Vitek is narrower; involved prisoner transfer hearing and did not apply Mathews	Court: Vitek does not extend a blanket confrontation right to all civil commitment hearings

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (establishes three-factor due process balancing test)
In re Det. of Stout, 159 Wn.2d 357 (Wash. 2007) (treats confrontation as procedural due process issue and applies Mathews in SVP context)
In re Det. of Coe, 175 Wn.2d 482 (Wash. 2012) (upholds admission of reports relied on by expert where Mathews factors and existing safeguards suffice)
Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (U.S. 1980) (recognizes confrontation protections in prisoner transfer to mental hospital but does not apply Mathews)
In re Det. of Thorell, 149 Wn.2d 724 (Wash. 2003) (liberty interest in freedom from bodily restraint triggers due process protections)
In re Det. of W.C.C., 185 Wn.2d 260 (Wash. 2016) (confirms ITA proceedings are civil and describes procedural protections)