{ "id": 12174900, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF JAMES SPENCER", "name_abbreviation": "In re Spencer", "decision_date": "2014-09-02", "docket_number": "No. COA14-143", "first_page": "80", "last_page": "86", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "236 N.C. App. 80" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "428 S.E.2d 861", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "863" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "110 N.C. App. 67", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524751 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "70" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/110/0067-01" ] }, { "cite": "698 S.E.2d 65", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "67", "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "364 N.C. 297", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4152888 ], "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "301", "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/364/0297-01" ] }, { "cite": "231 S.E.2d 633", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "635" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "291 N.C. 693", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558987 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "695" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/291/0693-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 605, "char_count": 12942, "ocr_confidence": 0.726, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.37863130637509e-08, "percentile": 0.4421497160645273 }, "sha256": "9f665270aeba3685f3fac2b10b62081a6ac34eba2ed409f97057bdf382671119", "simhash": "1:0c6fd1b5fef90254", "word_count": 2060 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:41:07.458141+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges STEELMAN and ERVIN concur." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF JAMES SPENCER" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "McCullough, Judge.\nRespondent James Spencer appeals from an order of the trial court, involuntarily committing him to inpatient treatment for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days. Based on the reasons stated herein, we affirm the order of the trial court.\nI. Background\nOn 20 July 2013, Dr. Sharyn Comeau of Wake Med Hospital filed an affidavit and petition for involuntary commitment, providing that respondent James Spencer was \u201cmentally ill and dangerous to self or others or mentally ill and in need of treatment in order to prevent further disability or deterioration that would predictably result in dangerousness.\u201d The affidavit stated that respondent\nhas ongoing psychosis and hyper religiosity concerning the mark of the beast and people in authority being satanic in some way. He continues to make decisions that compromise his medical care, currently his sodium [is] compromised to the point of needing medical intervention. He has multiple past psychiatric hospitalizations and he has a sister who his his [sic] guardian t in part [sic] of his medically compromising his health due to his lack of judgment and insight. He cannot be safely released into the community at this time.\nOn the same day, Dr. Comeau also completed an \u201cExamination and Recommendation to Determine Necessity for Involuntary Commitment.\u201d Dr. Comeau opined that respondent was mentally ill and dangerous to himself, and recommended inpatient commitment for ten (10) days. On 22 July 2013, respondent was admitted to Holly Hill Hospital.\nA hearing was held at the 25 July 2013 session of Wake County District Court. Dr. Muhammed Saeed, a psychiatrist at Holly Hill Hospital, testified that he had examined respondent on 23 July 2013. Dr. Saeed described respondent as \u201cvery psychotic, very paranoid, very agitated, not caring for self.\u201d Dr. Saeed stated that respondent had multiple medical problems, but that the \u201cmost concerning is hyponatremia\u201d which if it is not treated, could be life threatening. Dr. Saeed opined that respondent was mentally ill and suffering from schizophrenia. Respondent displayed extreme paranoid ideation, somatic delusions, and grandiose delusions. Dr. Saeed testified that respondent was unable to care for himself as demonstrated by his inability to restrict his fluid intake and his refusal to take his medication the two previous days. Dr. Saeed testified that he believed respondent was in need of further inpatient treatment at Holly Hill Hospital and recommended a commitment of sixty (60) days.\nRespondent testified at the hearing. Respondent agreed that he suffered from schizophrenia but did not think he needed inpatient treatment and should have been discharged from Holly Hill Hospital.\nOn 25 July 2013, the trial court entered an involuntary commitment order. The trial court found by clear, cogent and convincing evidence that\nTHE RESPONDENT CONTESTS COMMITMENT. The respondent acknowledges and recognizes that he suffers from a mental illness, that being schizophrenia. Symptoms include psychotic behavior (somatic delusions and grandiose delusions) and extreme paranoid behavior as well as agitation. However, the respondent does not appreciate the degree of his paranoia, and this has resulted in situations wherein he has threatened physical aggression in response to medical treatment.\nThe respondent suffers from hyponatremia. Low sodium levels can be a life threatening situation. The respondent disagrees with his health care provider\u2019s assessment of his sodium levels. The respondent has been told to intake no more than 1 liter of fluid, which is about one quart (or 32 ounces). While the respondent is trying to . . . monitor his fluid intake, he believes that he can consume 56 ounces of fluid (7 eight-ounce cups).\nSince his June 21, 2013 initial admission to Holly Hill, the respondent\u2019s compliance with medication has been up and down. Most recently, for the past two days he has refused all medication, including medication to treat his mental illness and his hyponatremia. Without medical treatment, the respondent will suffer from ongoing psychotic decom-pensation. The respondent is not able to appropriately cope with stress, is not following recommendations, and won\u2019t cooperate with doctor\u2019s advice.\nThe respondent has poor insight into his paranoia and physical health condition. The respondent\u2019s refusal to take his medication or follow his health care provider\u2019s instructions regarding fluid intake demonstrate an inability to satisfy his need for medical care. The respondent is unable to take care of himself without a structured environment. He is not currently stable from a mental or physical health perspective. There is a reasonable probability of the respondent\u2019s suffering serious physical debilitation within the near future unless adequate treatment is given.\nBased on the foregoing reasons, the trial court concluded that respondent was mentally ill and dangerous to himself. Respondent was committed to an inpatient facility for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days.\nOn 22 August 2013, respondent filed notice of appeal from the 25 July 2013 order.\nII. Discussion\nOn appeal, respondent argues that (A) his involuntary commitment was contrary to law because he was not evaluated by a second physician within 24 hours of admission to the Holly Hill Hospital in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-266 and that (B) the trial court erred by involuntarily committing respondent where he was not given notice of the commitment proceeding in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-264.\nBefore addressing the merits of respondent\u2019s appeal, we first address the preliminary matter of whether his appeal is moot. Although the sixty (60) day commitment period provided in the 25 July 2013 order has expired, our Supreme Court has held that \u201c[t]he possibility that respondent\u2019s commitment in this case might likewise form a basis for a future commitment, along with other obvious collateral legal consequences, convinces us that this appeal is not moot.\u201d In re Hatley, 291 N.C. 693, 695, 231 S.E.2d 633, 635 (1977). Therefore, we hold that respondent\u2019s appeal is not moot and address the merits of his appeal.\nA. Examination bv a Physician\nRespondent argues that the record does not demonstrate that he was examined by a second physician within twenty-four hours of being admitted to Holly Hill Hospital, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-266. Respondent admits that while Dr. Saeed testified that he examined respondent on 23 July 2013, there was no written record of the examination demonstrating Dr. Saeed\u2019s findings. As such, respondent contends that the 25 July 2013 order should be vacated.\n\u201cIt is well established that when a trial court acts contrary to a statutory mandate and a [party] is prejudiced thereby, the right to appeal the court\u2019s action is preserved, notwithstanding [the party\u2019s] failure to object at trial.\u201d State v. Davis, 364 N.C. 297, 301, 698 S.E.2d 65, 67 (2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted).\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-266 provides that\n(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (e), within 24 hours of arrival at a 24-hour facility described in G.S. 122C-252, the respondent shall be examined by a physician. This physician shall not be the same physician who completed the certificate or examination under the provisions of G.S. 122C-262 or G.S. 122C-263. The examination shall include but is not limited to the assessment specified in G.S. 122C-263(c).\n(c) The findings of the physician and the facts on which they are based shall be in writing, in all cases. A copy of the findings shall be sent to the clerk of superior court by reliable and expeditious means.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-266(a) and (c) (2013).\nOur Court has previously held that \u201c[t]he purpose of the second examination [pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-266] is to protect the rights of a respondent who has been taken to a medical facility immediately prior thereto to insure that he was properly committed.\u201d In re Lowery, 110 N.C. App. 67, 70, 428 S.E.2d 861, 863 (1993).\nHere, respondent concedes that Dr. Saeed\u2019s testimony illustrates that he conducted an examination of respondent on 23 July 2013, the day after he was admitted to Holly Hill Hospital. Dr. Saeed\u2019s testimony indicated that he believed respondent to be mentally ill with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Dr. Saeed also stated throughout his testimony that respondent was a danger to himself because he refused to take necessary medication, was unable to care for himself, and was unable to limit his fluids in order to keep his sodium level normal. On appeal, respondent does not, contest the substance of Dr. Saeed\u2019s testimony, nor does he argue that he was improperly committed based on any insufficiency of Dr. Saeed\u2019s examination. Reviewing the record, we are unable to find that respondent was prejudiced by the absence of a written record of Dr. Saeed\u2019s findings. Based on the foregoing, we reject respondent\u2019s argument that the involuntary commitment order should be vacated.\nB. Notice of Hearing\nNext, respondent argues that the trial court erred by failing to provide respondent with notice of the 25 July 2013 commitment hearing in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-264.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-264(c) provides that\n[n]otice to the respondent, . . . shall be given as provided in G.S. 1A-1, Rule 4(j) at least 72 hours before the hearing. Notice to other individuals shall be sent at least 72 hours before the hearing by first-class mail postage prepaid to the individual\u2019s last known address. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 6 shall not apply.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-264(c) (2013).\nIn the present case, the trial court stated at the end of the 25 July 2013 hearing that \u201cI\u2019ve noted that concern that his power of attorney was not given the notice that [respondent] thinks they\u2019re entitled to.\u201d Nonetheless, the transcript of the hearing reveals that both respondent and his attorney were present at the hearing. Respondent was able to testify on his own behalf. Most importantly, respondent has not argued or demonstrated that the failure to receive notice of the hearing resulted in his inability to adequately prepare for the hearing. Because respondent has failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the failure to receive notice of the 25 July 2013 hearing, his argument is overruled.\nIII. Conclusion\nWhere respondent has failed to demonstrate any prejudice by the lack of a written record of his second examination by a physician and by any failure to give respondent notice of the 25 July 2013 hearing, we affirm the order of the trial court.\nAffirmed.\nJudges STEELMAN and ERVIN concur.\n. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-262 is entitled \u201cSpecial emergency procedure for individuals needing immediate hospitalization.\u201d\n. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-263 is entitled \u201cDuties of law-enforcement officer; first examination by physician or eligible psychologist.\u201d", "type": "majority", "author": "McCullough, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Josephine Tetteh, for the State.", "Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, by Matthew W. Wolfe and Robert A. Leandro, for petitioner-appellee Holly Hill Hospital.", "Appellate Defender Staples S. Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Mary Cook, for respondent." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF JAMES SPENCER\nNo. COA14-143\nFiled 2 September 2014\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014appeal not moot\u2014involuntary commitment\u2014basis for future commitment\u2014collateral legal consequences\nRespondent\u2019s appeal from the trial court\u2019s order involuntarily committing him to inpatient mental health treatment for a period not to exceed sixty days was not moot. Even though the sixty-day commitment period had expired, the possibility that respondent\u2019s commitment might form a basis for a future commitment, along with other obvious collateral legal consequences, rendered the appeal not moot.\n2. Mental Illness\u2014involuntary commitment\u2014examination by second physician\u2014no written findings\u2014no prejudice\nThe trial court did not err by involuntarily committing respondent to inpatient mental health treatment for a period not to exceed sixty days even though the record did not include written findings that he had been examined by a second physician within twenty-four hours of being admitted to the hospital, in violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 122C-266. Respondent was not prejudiced by the absence of a written record from the doctor who testified that he had examined respondent the day after respondent had been admitted to the hospital.\n3. Notice\u2014involuntary commitment hearing\u2014inadequate\u2014no prejudice\nThe trial court did not err by involuntarily committing respondent to inpatient mental health treatment for a period not to exceed sixty days even though notice of the commitment hearing was inadequate under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 122C-264. Respondent failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the inadequate notice.\nAppeal by respondent from order entered 25 July 2013 by Judge Debra Sasser in Wake County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 August 2014.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Josephine Tetteh, for the State.\nParker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, by Matthew W. Wolfe and Robert A. Leandro, for petitioner-appellee Holly Hill Hospital.\nAppellate Defender Staples S. Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Mary Cook, for respondent." }, "file_name": "0080-01", "first_page_order": 88, "last_page_order": 94 }