In re K.S. ( 2021 )

Supreme Court
No. 2020-221-Appeal.
(MH-20-312)
In re K.S. :
ORDER
The respondent in this case, Katelyn Sullivan,1 appeals from the entry of an
order issued by the Sixth Division of the District Court certifying her to inpatient
treatment, a medication maintenance program, and case management services at
Westerly Hospital from August 7, 2020 to February 7, 2021. On appeal, Ms.
Sullivan avers that the hearing justice erred in denying: (1) her motion for a writ of
habeas corpus, which motion invoked G.L. 1956 § 40.1-5-12(1); and (2) her motion
to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) of the District Court Civil Rules. This case came
before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the parties to show cause
why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After a careful
review of the record and the parties’ arguments (both written and oral), we are of the
opinion that cause has not been shown and that the appeal may be resolved without
1
Katelyn Sullivan is a pseudonym for the actual respondent, whose privacy we
wish to protect.
-1-
further briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth herein, it is our considered
opinion that the instant case should be dismissed as moot.
In early July of 2020, Ms. Sullivan was briefly hospitalized at Lawrence +
Memorial Hospital in New London, Connecticut, after having been found lying on
the sidewalk in front of that hospital, expressing suicidal ideations and exhibiting
signs of dementia. Soon after her arrival, the physicians at that New London hospital
determined that Ms. Sullivan met the qualifying criteria set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat.
§ 17a-502 for emergency certification; as such, she was certified to that hospital and
subsequently admitted. In view of Ms. Sullivan’s treatment needs, the medical staff
of the New London hospital determined that its own facilities were inadequate to
continue treating Ms. Sullivan. Accordingly, the decision was made by medical staff
to transfer Ms. Sullivan to Westerly Hospital in nearby Westerly, Rhode Island,
because the latter hospital had a locked psychiatric unit which, in their judgment,
would be better suited for Ms. Sullivan’s care. Following the transfer, the physicians
of Westerly Hospital performed their own evaluation and emergency certified Ms.
Sullivan pursuant to the relevant Rhode Island statute (§ 40.1-5-7).
Thereafter, on July 15, 2020, a physician at Westerly Hospital, through the
Rhode Island Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and
Hospitals, filed in the District Court a Petition for Civil Court Certification pursuant
to § 40.1-5-8(a) and a Petition for Instructions pursuant to § 40.1-5-8(m), seeking an
-2-
order certifying Ms. Sullivan for continued treatment and for the administration of
certain medications. In response, on July 23, 2020, the Rhode Island Office of the
Mental Health Advocate (the Advocate) filed a motion for a writ of habeas corpus
and a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on behalf of Ms. Sullivan.
At a hearing on July 30, 2020, the Advocate contended that the process by which
Ms. Sullivan was transferred from the hospital in New London to Westerly Hospital
violated her constitutional right to due process and that, because of the involuntary
nature of the transfer from Connecticut to Rhode Island, the District Court lacked
personal jurisdiction over her. The hearing justice denied both motions, finding that:
(1) the process by which Ms. Sullivan was transferred was legal; and (2) that the
District Court had personal jurisdiction over Ms. Sullivan. An order was entered on
August 7, 2020, granting Westerly Hospital’s Petition for Civil Court Certification.2
Ms. Sullivan filed a timely notice of appeal on August 17, 2020 pursuant to § 40.1-
5-8(k). In the Fall of 2020, Ms. Sullivan was placed under a temporary
conservatorship and transferred to a long-term care facility in Hamden, Connecticut.
Consequently, this case was taken off the District Court’s calendar and was never
reviewed for amendment or renewal.
In view of the just-summarized travel of the instant matter, it is our considered
opinion that the case has become moot. See City of Cranston v. Rhode Island
2
Significantly, that certification expired by its own terms on February 7, 2021.
-3-
Laborers’ District Council, Local 1033, 960 A.2d 529, 533 (R.I. 2008) (“If this
Court’s judgment would fail to have a practical effect on the existing controversy,
the question is moot, and we will not render an opinion on the matter.”); see also
Rhode Island Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities
and Hospitals v. L.Z., 208 A.3d 242, 243 (R.I. 2019) (mem.); Morris v. D’Amario,
416 A.2d 137, 139 (R.I. 1980). For this reason, we need not and shall not address
the various issues alluded to by the parties in their submissions to this Court.
Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed on the grounds of mootness.
Entered as an Order of this Court this 24th day of November 2021.
By Order,
/s/ Debra A. Saunders, Clerk
Clerk
-4-
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
Licht Judicial Complex
250 Benefit Street
Providence, RI 02903
ORDER COVER SHEET
Title of Case In re K.S.
No. 2020-221-Appeal.
Case Number
(MH-20-312)
Date Order Filed November 24, 2021
Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and
Justices
Long, JJ.
Source of Appeal 6th Division District Court
Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Judge Pamela Woodcock-Pfeiffer
For Petitioner:
John D. Plummer, Esq.
Thomas J. Corrigan, Jr.
Attorney(s) on Appeal Kate Breslin Harden, Esq.
For Respondent:
Jacqueline I. Burns, Esq.
Megan N. Clingham, Esq.
SU-CMS-02B (revised June 2020)