Old law meets new medicine: revisiting involuntary psychotropic medication of the criminal defendant.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Civil Rights↗
Biomedical subjects
A J Grudzinskas
Publications and source records attributed to A J Grudzinskas.
Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael.
The U.S. Supreme Court considered an appeal by the defendant, Kumho Tire, in a products liability action. The appeal resulted from a ruling by the Court of Appeals in the Eleventh Circuit that overturned the district court's exclusion of expert testimony. The plaintiff's expert had sought to testify regarding the reasons for a tire failure and blowout. The subsequent accident resulted in personal injury and the death of a passenger in the plaintiff's vehicle. The Supreme Court held that expert testimony, whether based on professional studies or on personal experience, is subject to the same standard of scrutiny for relevancy and reliability. This decision resolved a conflict that had arisen among the circuit courts of appeal with respect to this issue. The article first outlines the Court's decision, then considers the implication the decision has for the admissibility of expert opinion testimony in future cases.
Accidents, Traffic↗
The efficacy of involuntary outpatient treatment in Massachusetts.
One means to address some of the unintended consequences of the shift of treatment for individuals with serious mental illness from hospitals to communities has been involuntary outpatient treatment (IOT). Using Massachusetts data, 19 patients with court orders for IOT were matched to all and to best fits on demographic and clinical variables, and then to individuals with the closest fit on utilization before the IOT date. Outcomes indicated the IOT group had significantly fewer admissions and hospital days after the court order. The full impact of IOT requires more study, particularly directed toward IOT's effects on insight and quality of life.
Adult↗
A national survey of "consumer empowerment" at the state level.
OBJECTIVE: A national survey was conducted to determine the extent of consumer empowerment in the public mental health system. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to mental health authorities in all U.S. states and territories asking whether consumer empowerment or responsibility was defined in statutes, regulations, or policies and whether consumers or family members were employed in central or field offices of the authority. A rating scale measured the extent of consumer empowerment, and correlations were examined between this rating and other variables. RESULTS: The survey achieved a 100 percent response rate. Twenty-two states (39 percent) addressed consumer empowerment and 16 (28 percent) consumer responsibility in a statute, regulation, or policy. Twenty-seven states (48 percent) had paid positions for consumers in central offices, and three (5 percent) had such positions for family members. Half the states had paid positions for consumers in field offices, and 12 states (24 percent) had such positions for family members. The extent of a state's consumer empowerment had no relationship to region of the country or the state's mental health budget. A significant positive relationship was found between extent of empowerment and the size of the state's population and the quality of its mental health services. CONCLUSIONS: State mental health authorities vary widely in their direct involvement with consumer empowerment. Results indicate that mental health authorities need to make a greater commitment to the achievement of such empowerment if it is to become a meaningful part of government involvement with mental health services.
Administrative Personnel↗
General Electric Co. v. Joiner: lighting up the post-Daubert landscape?
The U.S. Supreme Court considered an appeal by the defendant, General Electric Co., in a products liability action. The appeal resulted from the ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that overturned the district court's exclusion of evidence of cancer causation. The Supreme Court held that questions of the admissibility of such evidence are reviewable under the same standard--abuse of discretion--as are other decisions regarding evidentiary issues and are not subject to a more stringent standard of review. The Court further held that whether or not the evidence is excluded or is dispositive of the case does not change this standard of review. The Court then examined and upheld the decision by the trial court rather than remanding the action to the circuit court for reconsideration in light of the decision. Coupled with a series of recent circuit court of appeals decisions, the case establishes some guidance for the basis and methodology to be used to admit social science evidence in future cases.
Biphenyl Compounds↗
A competency-based approach to court-ordered outpatient treatment.
A quasi-experimental study of involuntary outpatient treatment in Massachusetts is described and analyzed. Results indicate decreased hospital use by the involuntarily treated outpatients, which may or may not be due to the involuntary intervention itself.
Adult↗
Kansas v. Hendricks.
The U.S. Supreme Court considered an appeal by the State of Kansas that arose from the Kansas Supreme Court's invalidation of the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act. The Act establishes procedures for the civil commitment of persons who, due to a "mental abnormality" or "personality disorder," are likely to engage in "predatory acts of sexual violence." The Supreme Court held that the Act's definition of "mental abnormality" satisfies substantive due process requirements. The Court further held that since the Act does not establish criminal proceedings, it does not violate the Constitution's double jeopardy prohibitions or its ban on ex post facto lawmaking. The Court's holding and its implications are discussed.
Adult↗