Ford

Ford v. Norton

Good Law
107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 776·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 435·2001 Daily Journal DAR 5779·89 Cal. App. 4th 974·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4699
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 7, 2001No. F032740California3,302 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Levy, J.

*977 Opinion

The Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) 1 is intended to provide prompt, short-term, community-based intensive treatment, without stigma or loss of liberty, to individuals with mental disorders who are either dangerous or gravely disabled. (Conservatorship of Chambers (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 277, 282 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 357 ].) When involuntary intensive treatment is indicated, the LPS Act authorizes the detention of mentally disordered persons for a 72-hour treatment and evaluation. (§ 5150 et seq.) Thereafter, the patient may be certified for additional involuntary detentions. (§ 5250 et seq.)

The central issue in this appeal is whether a psychologist who releases an involuntarily hospitalized mental patient before the end of the 72-hour treatment and evaluation hold is exempt from civil liability when that patient thereafter injures another person. The trial court concluded that, although the operative statute restricts immunity to “the psychiatrist directly responsible for the person’s treatment,” a psychologist is also exempt. In reaching this result, the trial court relied on California Assn. of Psychology Providers v. Rank (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1 [ 270 Cal.Rptr. 796 ,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.