Wyatt v. Stickney
1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14217, 325 F.Supp. 781 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Individuals who are involuntarily civilly committed to a state mental health institution have a constitutional right to receive adequate individual treatment that provides a realistic opportunity to be cured or to improve their mental condition, and the state's failure to provide such treatment cannot be justified by lack of funds or facilities.
Facts:
- Guardians of patients confined at Bryce Hospital and certain employees initiated a class action against Alabama mental health officials regarding the conditions and treatment at Bryce Hospital, a state mental health facility.
- Bryce Hospital housed approximately 5,000 patients, the majority of whom were involuntarily committed through civil proceedings.
- In October 1970, the Alabama Mental Health Board and the Department of Mental Health terminated 99 employees due to budgetary considerations, including 32 professionals such as psychologists, social workers, registered nurses, and physicians who provided direct patient care.
- After the employee terminations, the remaining professional staff directly involved in patient care at Bryce Hospital included only one Ph.D. clinical psychologist, three medical doctors with some psychiatric training, and two M.S.W. social workers.
- Alabama ranked fiftieth among all states in the Union in per-patient expenditures per day for mental health services.
- The treatment programs in use at Bryce Hospital prior to a recent reorganization effort were found to be scientifically and medically inadequate and failed to conform to any known minimums for providing treatment to the mentally ill.
- Between 1,500 and 1,600 geriatric patients and approximately 1,000 mental retardates, most of whom received only custodial care without any psychiatric treatment, were confined within the Bryce Hospital patient population.
Procedural Posture:
- Guardians of patients confined at Bryce Hospital and certain employees initiated a class action lawsuit in federal district court against the commissioner and deputy commissioner of the Alabama Department of Mental Health and other state officials.
- The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The federal district court held a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, during which testimony was taken.
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 failure of a state mental health institution to provide adequate individualized treatment to involuntarily committed patients, due to insufficient funds and staffing, violate the patients' constitutional right to due process?
Opinions:
Majority - JOHNSON, Chief Judge
Yes, the failure of a state mental health institution to provide adequate individualized treatment to involuntarily committed patients violates their constitutional right to due process, and this failure cannot be excused by a lack of funds or facilities. The court reasoned that when individuals are involuntarily committed for treatment purposes through noncriminal proceedings, they possess a constitutional right to receive "such individual treatment as will give each of them a realistic opportunity to be cured or to improve his or her mental condition." Without adequate treatment, the hospital is unconstitutionally transformed "into a penitentiary where one could be held indefinitely for no convicted offense," thus subverting the very purpose of civil commitment from treatment to mere custodial care or punishment. Citing Rouse v. Cameron and Covington v. Harris, the court affirmed that adequate and effective treatment is constitutionally required. It further emphasized, drawing from Rouse, that a shortage of psychiatric personnel or facilities cannot justify indefinite delay in fulfilling these fundamental rights, which are "present rights." The court found from the evidence that Alabama ranked last among states in per-patient expenditures and that the existing treatment programs at Bryce Hospital were "scientifically and medically inadequate." The court concluded that to deprive any citizen of liberty on the theory of humane therapeutic reasons and then fail to provide adequate treatment violates the core principles of due process.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision that established the constitutional "right to treatment" for individuals civilly committed to state mental health institutions, solidifying the principle that confinement without adequate treatment constitutes a deprivation of liberty without due process. It profoundly impacted mental health law, shifting the focus from mere custodial care to requiring active therapeutic intervention. The ruling set a critical precedent for judicial oversight of institutional conditions and services, paving the way for further litigation to ensure humane and effective treatment for vulnerable populations involuntarily committed to state facilities.
