Automatic Stay of Involuntary Medication Orders and Tolling of Statutory Limitations

Abstract

TheMaryland Court of Appeals found that the plain language of Md. Code Ann. Health-Gen. § 10–708 established that, at a hearing to appeal a clinical review panel’s decision, a patient had a right to request counsel. The court ruled that procedural due process required verification of the patient’s knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to request counsel, but an on-the-record colloquy is not required. In addition, the patient’s right to request counsel is not subject to a time limit. The court was cognizant of the potential delays that having no time limit on requesting counsel could create. Patients, as a delaying tactic, could wait until the hearing before the ALJ before requesting counsel. Delays could place undue burden on the mental health system and potentially put the patient and others at risk of harm. On the other hand, the law clearly stated that Mr. Mercer had a right to request council. To determine whether Mr. Mercer was erroneously deprived of procedural due process, the court turned to the balancing test provided in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). The court determined that, because the appeal request form was deficient and the administrative hearing took place beyond the seven days prescribed by law, Mr. Mercer had been erroneously deprived of procedural due process. The court suggested that the appeal request form could be redrafted to advise individuals of their right to request counsel and also include information on the consequences of declining counsel. Verification of the waiver could be accomplished through this modified appeals request form or an in-person procedure.