Mental Health Law Notes 1
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University Of Connecticut *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
5476
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by DoctorChinchillaPerson1028
Class 9/1
Idea for class discussion: Direct to Consumer Pharmaceutical Advertising
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3278148/
Ringwald v. Prudential Insurance (2010) (disability in part due to mental illness does
not qualify for long term disability coverage under the plan)
F: P submitted claim for long term disability benefits claiming he was disabled and unable to
work due to depression and HIV.
I
: If a mental illness in combination with a physical illness causes a a participant to be unable
to perform any gainful employment, are disability benefits still limited to 24 months?
R
: The plan indicates that the mental illness limitation of only 24 month of disability
coverage applied if the disability is due in whole or part to depression or bipolar disease.
H
: B/C P inability to work was due in part to mental illness, D did not breach the terms of the
Plan by limiting the P benefits to 24 months, and D is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Had he only been limited to work due to the HIV alone and never mentioned the depression, the
plan would have likely extended beyond the 24 months. Class 9/8
The Center Cannot Hold: My Journey Through the Madness (Law professor w/ schizophrenia)
Class 3 on negligent treatment and professional liability:
CB pp. 148-177(Note 8); 191-201; 208-229; 234(Note 1)-252; 270-288 Class 9/15/22
Malpractice/civil liability Stepakoff v. Kantar (1985) (Instructions on D duty)
Claim: That Dr.Kantor breached a duty of care that resulted in the decedent suicide.
I: Did the Dr. Breach a duty of care to meet the applicable standard?
Standard: Professional Custom
Schrempf v. State (1985) (Defenses and Limitions, Professional Judgement Rule)
Osheroff v. Chestnut Lodge Inc. (Respectable Minority Doctrine)
Merchants Nat. bank v. United States (3
rd
party liability)
H: There was a duty to a 3
rd
party.by the hospital.
Tarasoff v. Reg. of UC (3
rd
party liability) There is a duty of care to take reasonable care to protect the intended victim.
Against what standard of care is fact finder expected to hold a mental healthcare professional
too. Muse v Charter Hospital
Addressed a situation where a 16 year old kid with significant depressive and psychosis
symptoms had been hospitalized for treatment. Hospital had a policy of discharging
patients when insurance ran out. Hospital discharged him. He then took a fatal overdose
of his medication and committed suicide.
The SC found the hospital liable for wonton negligence. No duty to 3
rd
party or actor unless there is a special relationship. Special relationship example:
schools.
VA Tech Shooting: A senior at VA tech killed 32 student and faculty, wounded 17 others, and then took his own life.
This student displayed previous troubling signs. He wrote a paper that included a story about a
student that committed a shooting and killed himself. Class 4 on privacy and the duty of confidentiality: CB pp. 372-397; 412-417; 425-430; 478-489
Class 9/22/2022
Class 5 on expert psychiatric testimony: CB pp. 495-513; 516-532; 536-555; 556-570; 624-630; “On being sane in insane places”;
additional materials on Rosenhan
On Being Sane In Insane Places David L. Rosenhan
*
Class 9/29/22
United States v. Lewellyn pg 524
-
D sought to raise an insanity defense
-
TC excluded the evidence D wanted to introduce
-
When do you get to introduce evidence of insanity?
o
-
Compulsive gambling had a causal relationship to his criminal activity. -
The court says it needs to pass the general acceptance test
o
The court decides it does not meet the frye standards and thus it was appropriate
that the TC excluded the expert testimony
-
Mental Health Professionals as Experts
Barefoot v. Estelle (pg 541)
What is the role of the adversarial system in qualifying mental health expert testimony?
Wisconsin v. Loomis (pg 556)
United States v. Edwards pg 625
Class 6 on competency issues in the criminal process: 10/6/22
CB pp. 570-575; 1134-1166(Note 5); 1188-1210(Note 6); 1223-1239 Due process requires in inquiry into competency. Godinez v. Moran pg 1188
-
Knowing and voluntary waiver
Indiana v. Edwards pg 1200
Ford v. Wainwright pg 1223 (6 rationales for competency requirement in death penalty cases)
Criminal Responsibility and the Insanity Defense
Pg 631-676, 677-699, 720-724(note 1)
Clark v. Arizona (2006) pg 680
The judgment of the state appellate court was affirmed. The Supreme Court of the United States
held that Arizona's use of an insanity test stated solely in terms of the capacity to tell whether an
act charged as a crime was right or wrong did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due
process provisions, as there was such fodder for reasonable debate about what the cognate legal
and medical tests should be, due process imposed no single canonical formulation of legal
insanity. The Court further held that Arizona's test did not raise a proper claim that some
constitutional minimum had been shortchanged, for cognitive incapacity was relevant under that
test, just as it was under a more extended test, and evidence going to cognitive incapacity had the
same significance under both tests. Moreover, the Court ruled that Arizona's restricting
consideration of defense evidence of mental illness and incapacity to the evidence's bearing on a
claim of insanity. Thus eliminating the evidence's significance directly on the issue of the mental
element of the crime charged, did not violate the
Fourteenth Amendment's
due process
provisions, because this imposed no restriction on considering observation evidence.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Class 10/13/2022
-
Retributive punishment- debt to society
-
Utilitarian punishment- keep society safe, general deterrence (setting an example),
specific deterrence (prevent this person from continuing the action)
-
Rehabilitation- reform an offender (ex. Scandanavian country’s)
The insanity defense overlaps with these ideas. -
W/ regards to retributive punishment, they don’t owe a debt. -
From a Utilitarian stance you cant expect an insane person from being deterred by a
punishment. -
From a rehabilitive stance, it goes to the idea that the individual needs treatment over
punishment. M’Naghten Test pg 636- that the individual doesn’t know what they are doing or the
wrongfulness of that. Or if they did know, that they did not know what they were doing was
wrong. Criticized for being very narrow, did not seem to appreciate the varied ways people can
act. “DO they know right from wrong.” Irrestible Impulse Test pg 636- someone might have understood what they would have done but
couldn’t control themselves. The Durham Rule pg 637: Fed. Court of Appeals for DC came up with this test the accused is not
criminally responsible if the offense was the product of a mental defect. Abandoned the test
The American Law Insitiute Test pg 638: Rejection of Medical Model pg 639: A person should be found insane if at the time of his
unlawful conduct his mental or emotional processes or behavior controls were impaired to such
an extent that he cannot justly be held responsible for his act.”
The Heads Case pg 646: Triggered by PTSD, was not convicted for murder by reason of
insanity.
Pollard Case (Volitional Impairment ) pg 661
-
Found to be acting impulsively insane
Clark v. Arizona
-
Individual believed police officer was an alien and killed him.
-
D wanted to introduce evidence regarding his mental illness to show he was insane and
also to show that he did not have the intent to kill the police officer.
o
TC ruled that the court confined his use of the expert testimony regarding his
mental health only for insanity defense and not for the lack of intent mens rea
aspect of his defense.
-
Insanity defense: mental defect of such severity that they don’t know what they are doing
-
Court said it is not unconstitutional to eliminate a core aspect of the insanity defense
-
Regarding the mens rea aspect, the court said that no testimony about mental health
diagnosis or symptom can be used to defend ones lack of intent
o
Each jurisdiction can decide the admissibility of mental health diagnosis for
issues outside of insanity defense (like the mens rea component)
Class 10/20/22
Pg 744-810
Capital Sentencing
Atkins v. Virgina (pg 756)
-
Categorical exclusions of people with intellectual disabilities
Class 10/27/2022
812-856, 861-895
Dodd v. Hughes pg 834
-
Police power commitment
-
Parents part
-
How and why did dodd seek release from the Nevada state hospital?
-
Does mental illness recquire something like psychosis to be committed?
Matter of Gregorovich pg 840
-
Recquires mental illness + dangerousness Whaley v. Jansen
Parents patriae commitment:
O’Connor v. Donaldson
-
Parents Patrae case -
“A state cant constitutionally confine without more, a non dangerous individual who is
capable to surviving safely in freedom by himself or with the helo of willing and
responsible family members or friends” (pg 871)
-