Greene v. Edwards
1980 W. Va. LEXIS 460, 164 W. Va. 326, 263 S.E.2d 661 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual facing involuntary civil commitment for having a communicable disease is entitled to the same procedural due process protections as an individual facing involuntary commitment for mental illness.
Facts:
- A petition was filed with the Circuit Court of McDowell County alleging that William Arthur Greene was suffering from active communicable tuberculosis.
- A health officer opined that Greene's environmental conditions were unsuitable for proper isolation and that he was unable or unwilling to conduct himself in a manner that would not expose others to infection.
- Greene was served with a copy of the petition and a notice of a hearing.
- The notice served on Greene did not inform him that he was entitled to be represented by counsel at the hearing.
- At the commitment hearing, the court appointed an attorney for Greene only after the proceeding had already commenced.
- The court proceeded to take evidence and order Greene's commitment without pausing to allow him and his newly appointed attorney to consult privately.
- Following the hearing, the court ordered Greene to be involuntarily confined in Pinecrest Hospital.
Procedural Posture:
- The department of health filed a petition in the Circuit Court of McDowell County, the trial court, requesting an order to commit William Arthur Greene.
- The Circuit Court held a hearing and ordered Greene's commitment to Pinecrest Hospital.
- Greene filed an original petition for a writ of habeas corpus directly with the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, the state's highest court, to challenge the legality of his confinement.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the West Virginia Tuberculosis Control Act violate procedural due process by failing to guarantee an individual the right to counsel, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and the right to have the commitment be based on clear, cogent, and convincing proof?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. The West Virginia Tuberculosis Control Act violates procedural due process. Because involuntary commitment for a communicable disease impinges on the fundamental right to liberty just as commitment for mental illness does, the procedural safeguards required for the latter must also extend to the former. The court analogized this case to its precedent in State ex rel. Hawks v. Lazaro, which established due process requirements for the involuntary hospitalization of the mentally ill. The court reasoned that since both statutes have a similar rationale—protecting the public from a perceived danger—and result in a comparable deprivation of liberty, the same constitutional protections must apply. Specifically, the court held that Greene was denied effective assistance of counsel when an attorney was appointed for him mid-hearing without any opportunity to prepare a defense, which is a critical due process violation.
Analysis:
This decision significantly elevates the due process rights of individuals facing involuntary commitment for public health reasons. By equating the liberty interests at stake in communicable disease commitment with those in mental health commitment, the court rejects the notion that a public health crisis can justify foregoing fundamental procedural protections. This precedent establishes that any state action resulting in a significant deprivation of liberty, even if non-punitive and for public safety, must adhere to stringent due process standards, including the right to effective counsel and a heightened standard of proof. The ruling forces legislatures to draft public health statutes that balance community safety with robust protections for individual rights.
