NYLPI - New York Lawyers for the Public Interest Inc.

25/07/2024 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 25/07/2024 19:03

NYLPI Files Amicus Brief in Support of Clients Involuntarily Hospitalized for Mental Illness by New York City: “INDIVIDUALS WITH MENTAL DISABILITIES SHOULD NOT BE PRESUMED TO[...]

NYLPI Files Amicus Brief in Support of Clients Involuntarily Hospitalized for Mental Illness by New York City: "INDIVIDUALS WITH MENTAL DISABILITIES SHOULD NOT BE PRESUMED TO LACK CREDIBILITY"

July 25, 2024

Baerga v. City of New York, CCIT-NYC, Disability Justice, News, Transforming Mental Health Crisis Response

NYLPI Director of Disability JusticeRuth Lowenkron filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in support of the plaintiff-appellant in a case called Diana Rene v. Tanzia Mustafa, M.D., personally, Ejike Onuogu, M.D. , personally, Tahira Sial, M.D., personally, and Brunswick Hospital Center, Inc.

Diana Rene was a patient involuntarily committed to Brunswick Hospital after visiting Stony Brook University Medical Center for a painful gland issue. As the filing mentions, "Critically, there is not an inevitable correlation between admission to a psychiatric in-patient unit and lack of decisional capacity."

"An involuntary commitment to a mental hospital constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty, see, e.g., Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425 (1979), and therefore any adjudication of such a commitment requires the most careful examination of the facts by the reviewing court. And it is all the more critical that, where motions for summary judgment are made in such commitment cases, the court adhere to the strict axiom of resolving all ambiguities and drawing all permissible factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party, see, e.g., McLee v. Chrysler Corp., 109 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir. 1997).

Ensuring that individuals with mental disabilities, as well as those who are perceived to have mental disabilities, are able to avail themselves of the protections of Section 1983 like any other litigant, requires a full understanding of the widespread stereotyping and stigmatization of people with mental disabilities. This Court must then ensure that the district court's decision is devoid of any consideration based upon such stigmatization and stereotyping, especially as courts are barred from making credibility determinations at this stage."

Read the brief here.