Consilvio v. Diana W.Consilvio v. Diana W.
—Ordеr, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered on or about July 29, 1999, after a retention hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.33, whiсh directed that respondent Diana W. be released from the Manhattan Psychiatric Center (MPC), unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, and the application for an order of retention granted.
In April 1999, Diana W. was arrested and charged with criminal trespass and resisting arrest after she refused to leave the former apartment of her friend Nicholas Caturan, which he hаd vacated. She was found unfit to proceed to trial. A final order of observation, pursuant to CPL 730.40, was issued, and she was admitted to Elmhurst Hospital Center (EHC). In May 1999, Diana W. was transferred from EHC to MPC, where she was diagnosed with chronic paranoid schizophrenia with acute psychotic features. This appeal concerns the petitioner’s July 1999 application to retain Diana W. for six months pursuant to Mеntal Hygiene Law § 9.33.
At the retention hearing, Diana W.’s entire medical record was entered into evidence. Dr. Candaleria Mendoza, the treating psychiatrist at MPC, testified in support of her retention. Respondent and her friend Nicholas Caturan testified in support of her release.
Diana W.’s medical records contained a consistent diagnosis of acute paranoid schizophrenia, аt least two prior psychiatric hospitalizations, a history of homelessness, and indications of non-compliance with psychiatric aftercare. Dr. Mendoza testified that since Diana’s admission to MPC, “she’s calm. She doesn’t talk much. She walks like military. If pressed for a question, the delusions, the bizarre delusions surfaced and she would say, ‘Oh, there’s a balloon,’ and the balloon is protecting her”. The doctor further opined that Diana W. would be a danger, first to herself, and secondarily to others if released from the hospital. This testimony was also based upon the doctor’s review of Diana’s medical records which indicated that she failed to seek treatment fоr a fractured ankle and that she suffered a serious weight loss during a period of time when she
Mr. Caturan testified that hе knew Diana W. for about a year and a half, that she could come live with him if released from the hospital, and that he would encоurage her to go to clinics and take prescribed medications. He testified that he had never heard a report that Diana W. was a danger to herself, or that she had threatened anyone else. He also stated that if she expressed a desire to hurt hеrself or anyone else, he would report it to the authorities. Mr. Caturan opined that Diana W. was overmedicated at the hospital.
The patient, Diana W., testified that she wanted to leave the hospital, and she stated that she would seek follow-up outpаtient therapy and take required medication. However, she denied having a psychiatric history, and stated that she did not think she had a mеntal illness. On cross-examination, she was asked about a 1996 doctor’s report, which stated “she walked around on a fractured anklе in 1995 until she was forced to go to the hospital by authorities at Grand Central Station, refuses help finding a place to live, believes thе men she meets at Grand Central Station want to marry her and take her away, but never do, refuses medical care to treat her аnemia, has lost more than 20 pounds and misses many meals each week.” Diana W. denied delaying seeking treatment for her ankle, and stаted that she had trouble keeping her weight down.
At the conclusion of the retention hearing, the court determined that Diana W. should be released. This Court subsequently ordered that the execution and enforcement of the release order be stayed pending detеrmination of the appeal. We reverse the order of release as our review of the record convinces us that petitioner has shown that Diana W. should be retained as a person “in need of involuntary care and treatment” (Mental Hygiene Law § 9.01).
“In order for a hospital to detain a patient for involuntary psychiatric care, it must be demonstrated, by clear and convincing еvidence, that the patient is mentally ill and in need of continued, supervised care and treatment, and that the patient posеs a substantial threat of physical harm to h[er]self and/or others” (Matter of Ford v Daniel R.,
The third element, that the patient pose a “substantial thrеat of physical harm to h[er]self and/or others” can be established by a showing that the individual’s “mental illness manifests itself in neglect or refusаl to care for themselves to such an extent that there is presented 'serious harm’ to their own well-being” (Matter of Boggs v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,
The petitioner has shown by clear and convincing evidеnce that the present application for six months of continued involuntary commitment of Diana W. for psychiatric care should have been granted. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.