MENTAL HEALTH CODE
Act 258 of 1974
330.1408 Return of patient to hospital; conditions; notification of peace officers or security transport officers; protective custody; notice of opportunity to appeal.
Sec. 408.
(1) An individual is subject to being returned to a hospital if both of the following circumstances exist:
(a) The individual was admitted to the hospital by judicial order.
(b) The individual has left the hospital without authorization, or has refused a lawful request to return to the hospital while on an authorized leave or other authorized absence from the hospital.
(2) The hospital director may notify a peace officer or a security transport officer that an individual is subject to being returned to the hospital. Upon notification by the hospital director, a peace officer must take the individual into protective custody. After the individual is taken into protective custody, a police officer or security transport officer must transport the individual to a hospital.
(3) An opportunity for appeal, and notice of that opportunity, must be provided to an individual who objects to being returned from any authorized leave in excess of 10 days.
History: 1974, Act 258, Eff. Nov. 6, 1974 ;-- Am. 1986, Act 301, Imd. Eff. Dec. 22, 1986 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 155, Imd. Eff. June 14, 1988 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 290, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996 ;-- Am. 2022, Act 146, Eff. (sine die) ;-- Am. 2022, Act 214, Imd. Eff. Oct. 14, 2022
Notes of Decisions
Arthur Duckett v. Mary C Solky (2022)
michctapp · cites it 13×
“Solky concedes that after MDHHS revoked Duckett’s ALS contract she did not provide him with notice of his right to appeal his rehospitalization, despite the clear language of MCL 330.1408 and MCR 5.743 requiring her to have done so.”
Pelichet v. Gordon (2019)
mied · cites it 2×
“) 90 The Court finds that Plaintiff Bickerstaff’s unchallenged allegation of a violation of §330.1408(3), that Plaintiffs were deprived of their State statutory right to receive notice of their right to appeal from revocation of their ALS status, supports Plaintiffs’ claim…”
Bridges v. Cargor (2025)
mied
“He also asserts that “[d]ue process would apply to risk assessment tool[s] such as Static 99 and programing order by [the] MDOC and parole board” and that he “would enjoy the same protections [of] due process under MCL 330.1408 and MCL 330.1476 before being required … to undergo…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 330.1408(1) — 1 case
Arthur Duckett v. Mary C Solky (2022)
michctapp
“Solky concedes that after MDHHS revoked Duckett’s ALS contract she did not provide him with notice of his right to appeal his rehospitalization, despite the clear language of MCL 330.1408 and MCR 5.743 requiring her to have done so.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 330.1408(3) — 2 cases
Arthur Duckett v. Mary C Solky (2022)
michctapp
“Solky concedes that after MDHHS revoked Duckett’s ALS contract she did not provide him with notice of his right to appeal his rehospitalization, despite the clear language of MCL 330.1408 and MCR 5.743 requiring her to have done so.”
Pelichet v. Gordon (2019)
mied
“) 90 The Court finds that Plaintiff Bickerstaff’s unchallenged allegation of a violation of §330.1408(3), that Plaintiffs were deprived of their State statutory right to receive notice of their right to appeal from revocation of their ALS status, supports Plaintiffs’ claim…”
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.