Request By:
Mr. Robert Lee Rose
Clark County Attorney
Courthouse
Winchester, Kentucky 40391
Opinion
Opinion By: David L. Armstrong, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
You have written for our opinion concerning the transportation of individuals believed to be mentally ill to a hospital having a psychiatric ward. You cite KRS 202A.031, as part of Chapter 202A, relating to hospitalization of the mentally ill, as being central to the problem. It reads:
"(1) An authorized staff physician may order the admission of any person who is present at, or is presented at, a hospital. Within twenty-four (24) hours (excluding weekends and holidays) of the admission under this section, the authorized staff physician ordering the admission of the individual shall certify in the record of the individual that in his opinion the individual should be involuntarily hospitalized.
"(2) Any individual who has been admitted to a hospital under subsection (1) of this section shall be released from the hospital within seventy-two (72) hours (excluding weekends and holidays) unless further detained under the applicable provisions of this chapter."
You point out that the Clark County Hospital (only hospital in Clark County) has no facilities within which to confine a person who may be a danger to himself or others. See KRS 202A.011(5), defining "hospital". In that connection, your letter reads in part:
"When such a person is presented at the emergency room of the Clark County Hospital the physicians have no means to admit the person, but they are concerned about the release of the individual. The nearest hospitals which are equipped to treat such persons are in Lexington. In the past the physicians at the Clark County Hospital have attempted to secure an order from the Clark District Judge directing the sheriff's department to transport the person to Eastern State Hospital or some other hospital in Lexington where he would be examined by the staff physicians of that hospital who would then decide whether or not he should be admitted under the provisions of KRS 202A.031.
"The problem arises in that we have only one resident district judge and sometimes the staff physician at the Clark County Hospital is unable to reach the district judge to secure a court order directing the transportation of the person to a hospital in Lexington which has facilities capable of handling a person who may be a danger to himself or others. Actually, there is no authority under KRS 202A.031 for the judge to order the transfer of such a person to another county, however I would assume there could be no questions that the judge could direct the transfer of the person."
Your specific questions read:
"(1) Can a staff physician of the Clark County Hospital order the Clark County Sheriff to transport a person from Winchester to Lexington, Kentucky, for the presentation of the person at a hospital in that city for the purpose of its staff physician determining the need to admit the person under the provisions of KRS 202A.031?
(2) Provided a staff physician of the Clark County Hospital signs such an order can the sheriff legally transport the person from the Clark County Hospital to a hospital in Lexington, Kentucky?"
In answer to question no. (1), it is our opinion that, since the Clark County Hospital is not a hospital as defined in KRS 202A.011(5), KRS 202A.031 has no applicability to the Clark County Hospital. There is no statutory basis under KRS 202A.031 for the admission of the mentally ill person who qualifies under KRS 202A.011(2) and (8) and 202A.026 (criteria for involuntary hospitalization) . KRS 202A.031 in no way gives a staff physician of the Clark County Hospital the authority to order the sheriff of Clark County to transport the mentally ill person anywhere, including transporation to a hospital qualifying under KRS 202A.031 and 202A.011(5). There is no language in KRS 202A.031 even remotely suggesting that a Clark County Hospital physician could so direct the Clark County sheriff to take the mentally ill person to a qualifying hospital. In addition, the cold logic of the situation clearly means that, if the Clark County Hospital cannot admit such mentally ill person, it cannot do something other or less than an admission.
The answer to question no. (2) is that the Clark County Sheriff, even with a signed order of a staff physician of the Clark County Hospital, cannot under the facts given legally transport the mentally ill person to a qualifying hospital in Lexington or elsewhere.
The residual question is how may the situation be legally and efficaciously handled. We assume from your letter that you are speaking of a mentally ill person, as defined by KRS 202A.011(8), that poses a "danger" to self or others, as defined by KRS 202A.011(2). Thus the transportation of such mentally ill person by relatives or friends to a qualified hospital would constitute a danger or threat of danger to such private individuals. In such cases, you apparently reason, the transportation to such hospital by the county sheriff would obviate such danger or threat of danger.
Assuming the mentally ill person fits the definition of KRS 202A.011(8) and the criteria for involuntary hospitalization, as laid out in KRS 202A.026 (person presents a danger or threat of danger to self or others; person can reasonably benefit from treatment; and hospitalization is the least restrictive alternative mode of treatment presently available), it is our opinion that proceedings for the involuntary hospitalization of the mentally ill person may be commenced in the Clark District Court, pursuant to KRS 202A.014. The jurisdiction of the Clark District Court would attach here, since under your facts the mentally ill person resides in and would be located in, at the time of filing a petition, Clark County. In such proceedings, upon proper petitioning, and a showing of applicability of the above statutes of KRS Chapter 202A, the district court may order the sheriff or other peace officer to transport the mentally ill person to a qualifying hospital, which hospital indicates to the court that it will admit the mentally ill person under KRS 202A.031. See KRS 202A.016, for duties of the county attorney in connection with such court proceedings.
We believe the district court's authority for directing the sheriff or other peace officer of Clark County to transport such mentally ill person is found in KRS 202A.014, and 24A.140. The district court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Section 113(6), Kentucky Constitution; and Lee v. Porter, Ky.App., 598 S.W.2d 465 (1980) 468, observing that the term "limited jurisdiction", as applied to the district court, means that the forum only has the powers that are given to it by legislative grant. However, it is our view that, from the express powers of the district court, as stated in KRS 202A.014 and 24A.140, the power of the district court to direct the sheriff or other peace officer of his county to transport the mentally ill person may be reasonably implied as a necessary power for the proper and efficacious exercise of the court's jurisdiction. Judge Thomas, for the court, wrote in Stewart v. Sampson, 285 Ky. 447, 148 S.W.2d 278 (1941) 281-282, that "Technical jurisdiction, therefore, is the power and authority on the part of the court to hear and judicially determine and dispose of the cause pending before it, and which power and authority must be conferred in the manner hereinbefore stated" (power given by constitution and statute). Jurisdiction includes jurisdiction of the person and the subject matter. Ibid., page 280. It is written that "Courts have inherent power to do all things that are reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of their jurisdiction." 20 Am.Jur.2d, Courts, § 79, pages 440-441. Such powers do not increase a court's jurisdiction. They consist of those powers "essential to the existence of the court and necessary to the orderly and efficient exercise of its jurisdiction." Ibid., § 78, page 440.
We hope you find this helpful in the solution of your problem.