§
Subdivision 1.Establishment.
The executive board shall establish a review board of three or more persons for the Anoka-Metro Regional Treatment Center, Minnesota Security Hospital, and Minnesota Sex Offender Program to review the admission and retention of patients of that program receiving services under this chapter. One member shall be qualified in the diagnosis of mental illness, developmental disability, or chemical dependency, and one member shall be an attorney. The executive board may, upon written request from the appropriate federal authority, establish a review panel for any federal treatment facility within the state to review the admission and retention of patients hospitalized under this chapter. For any review board established for a federal treatment facility, one of the persons appointed by the executive board shall be the commissioner of veterans affairs or the designee of the commissioner of veterans affairs.
§
Subd. 2.Right to appear.
Each program specified in subdivision 1 shall be visited by the review board at least once every six months. Upon request each patient in the program shall have the right to appear before the review board during the visit.
§
Subd. 3.Notice.
The head of each program specified in subdivision 1 shall notify each patient at the time of admission by a simple written statement of the patient's right to appear before the review board and the next date when the review board will visit that program. A request to appear before the review board need not be in writing. Any employee of the program receiving a patient's request to appear before the review board shall notify the head of the program of the request.
§
Subd. 4.Review.
The review board shall review the admission and retention of patients at the program. The review board may examine the records of all patients admitted and may examine personally at its own instigation all patients who from the records or otherwise appear to justify reasonable doubt as to continued need of confinement in the program. The review board shall report its findings to the executive board and to the head of the program. The review board may also receive reports from patients, interested persons, and employees of the program, and investigate conditions affecting the care of patients.
§
Subd. 5.Compensation.
Each member of the review board shall receive compensation and reimbursement as established by the executive board.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case:
Hince v. O'KEEFE, 632 N.W.2d 577 (Minn. 2001).
Hince v. O'KEEFE, 632 N.W.2d 577 (Minn. 2001).
· cites it 13× “Appellants commenced a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that the Commissioner of the Department of Human Services is required to establish a review board for the Sex Offender Program treatment facilities under Minn.Stat. § 253B.22, subd. 1 (2000). In their…”
In re the Civil Commitment of Navratil, 799 N.W.2d 643 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “2d at 683 (stating that “treatment of patients is properly raised before a hospital review board”); see also Minn.Stat. §§ 253B.22 (providing for review boards), .”
Cnty. of Hennepin v. Levine, 345 N.W.2d 217 (Minn. 1984).
· cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 253B.22, subd. 2 (1982). At oral argument none of the parties were certain whether these regional review boards had in fact been established.”
In Re Moll, 347 N.W.2d 67 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “The trial court’s authorization of medication for a patient in the judicial commitment proceeding precludes effective review by the Review Board.”
Matter of Wicks, 364 N.W.2d 844 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “The treatment review boards established under Minn.Stat. § 253B.22 are the proper forum for determining whether Wicks is being properly treated.”
In re the Civil Commitment of Lonergan, 792 N.W.2d 473 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “2009) (citing Minn.Stat. § 253B.22 (2008) (relating to review boards for patients)); see also In re Pope, 351 N.”
Matter of Kolodrubetz, 411 N.W.2d 528 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “The boards must include at least one attorney and one person “qualified in the diagnosis of mental illness, mental retardation, or chemical dependency * * Minn.Stat. § 253B.22, subd. 1. Patients at the facilities have the right to appear before the board and must be notified of…”
Hince v. O'KEEFE, 613 N.W.2d 784 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 19× “Appellants sought a declaration that Minn.Stat. § 253B.22, subd. 1 (1998), requires the Commissioner of Human Services (the commissioner) to establish review boards at the two secure facilities where those committed to the MSOP are placed.”
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Terry Lee Branson (Minn. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 4× “Branson argues that, under Minnesota Statutes section 253B.22 (2024), titled “Review Boards,” the SRB may hear his right-to-treatment argument because it “is the entity authorized and responsible for safeguarding that treatment meets standards and the needs of the patient.”
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.