(1) Every hospital approved under the provisions of this chapter shall have a review
committee of three (3) qualified mental health professionals appointed by the
hospital director. This review committee shall have the authority to review the
appropriateness of a patient's individual treatment plan.
(2) Upon the refusal of an involuntary patient to participate in any or all aspects of his
treatment plan, the review committee shall examine the appropriateness of the
patient's individual treatment plan. Within three (3) days of the refusal, the review
committee shall meet with the patient and his counsel or other representative to
discuss its recommendations.
(3) If the patient still refuses to participate in any or all aspects of his individual
treatment plan, the hospital may petition the District Court for a de novo
determination of the appropriateness of the proposed treatment. Within seven (7)
days, the court shall conduct a hearing, consistent with the patient's rights to due
process of law, and shall utilize the following factors in reaching its determination:
(a) Whether the treatment is necessary to protect the patient or others from harm;
(b) Whether the patient is incapable of giving informed consent to the proposed
treatment;
(c) Whether any less restrictive alternative treatment exists; and
(d) Whether the proposed treatment carries any risk of permanent side effects.
(4) Upon the completion of the hearing, the court shall enter an appropriate judgment.
Effective: July 15, 1988
History: Amended 1988 Ky. Acts ch. 139, sec. 12, effective July 15, 1988. -- Created
1982 Ky. Acts ch. 445, sec. 28, effective July 1, 1982.
Legislative Research Commission Note. This section was enacted in 1982 Acts,
Chapter 445, which contains the following language in Section 45 of that Act: "This
Act shall become effective on July 1, 1982." The Ky. Constitution, in Section 55,
requires that a reason be set forth for the emergency. However, no reason is set forth
in this Act. The effective date for 1982 Acts with no emergency provision is July 15,
1982.
Notes of Decisions
Tolley v. Commonwealth, 892 S.W.2d 580 (Ky. 1995).
· cites it 5× “The principal issue is whether the specific reference in KRS 202A.196(3) to “the district court” in outlining the procedure to be followed when a mental hospital seeks a determination as to the appropriateness of a treatment plan, was intended by the General Assembly to be a…”
Messer v. Roney, 772 S.W.2d 648 (Ky. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 6× “Messer’s motion for discretionary review for the limited purpose of determining whether KRS 202A.196 is invalid under the United States and Kentucky Constitutions for failure to establish a standard of proof or to delineate criteria sufficient to guide a court in allowing the…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 202A.196(2) — 1 case
Messer v. Roney, 772 S.W.2d 648 (Ky. Ct. App. 1989).
“Messer’s motion for discretionary review for the limited purpose of determining whether KRS 202A.196 is invalid under the United States and Kentucky Constitutions for failure to establish a standard of proof or to delineate criteria sufficient to guide a court in allowing the…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 202A.196(3) — 2 cases
Tolley v. Commonwealth, 892 S.W.2d 580 (Ky. 1995).
“The principal issue is whether the specific reference in KRS 202A.196(3) to “the district court” in outlining the procedure to be followed when a mental hospital seeks a determination as to the appropriateness of a treatment plan, was intended by the General Assembly to be a…”
Messer v. Roney, 772 S.W.2d 648 (Ky. Ct. App. 1989).
“Messer’s motion for discretionary review for the limited purpose of determining whether KRS 202A.196 is invalid under the United States and Kentucky Constitutions for failure to establish a standard of proof or to delineate criteria sufficient to guide a court in allowing the…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 202A.196(3)(a) — 1 case
Tolley v. Commonwealth, 892 S.W.2d 580 (Ky. 1995).
“The principal issue is whether the specific reference in KRS 202A.196(3) to “the district court” in outlining the procedure to be followed when a mental hospital seeks a determination as to the appropriateness of a treatment plan, was intended by the General Assembly to be a…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.