IN RE INVOLUNTARY PLACEMENT OF BRENT RICE. BRENT RICE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Brent Rice challenged an involuntary mental health placement order. The court affirmed that the State proved the criteria for involuntary placement but reversed because the trial court failed to inform Rice of his statutory right to an independent expert examination as required by Florida law.
The court held that the hearing officer violated the statutory requirement under section 394.467(6)(a)2, Florida Statutes, which mandates that the patient be informed of the right to an independent expert examination and that the court provide for one if the patient cannot afford it.
[1] A court must inform a patient of their right to an independent expert examination in involuntary placement proceedings.
[2] If a patient cannot afford an independent expert examination, the court must provide for one.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The patient and the patient's guardian or representative shall be informed by the court of the right to an independent expert examination. If the patient cannot afford such an examination, the court shall provide for one.”
This statutory requirement establishes the court's affirmative duty to inform patients of their rights and provide funding for independent examinations when necessary.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrent Rice was subject to a hearing for involuntary placement in a mental health treatment facility. During the proceeding, after the State's treating…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
Brent Rice challenges an order for involuntary placement in a mental health treatment facility. He first asserts that the State failed to prove that he met the criteria for involuntary placement. We reject this argument without further discussion. Rice next argues that the trial court erred in failing to inform him of his right to an independent expert examination. We agree and reverse for further proceedings.
Section 394.467(6)(a)2, Florida Statutes (2007), provides, in part: “The patient and the patient’s guardian or representative shall be informed by the court of the right to an independent expert examination. If the patient cannot afford such an examination, the court shall provide for one.” The record reflects that the hearing officer failed to comply with this statutory requirement.
Rice’s counsel made a request for a continuance and an independent examination after one witness, Rice’s treating psychiatrist, had testified for the State. At that time, the hearing officer asked Rice if he had anything to say, and Rice’s counsel responded: “I had talked to him earlier, and he had mentioned to me that he wanted to go home. He felt well enough to go home. And he wants me to ask for a continuance to get an independent examination.” Counsel then requested a two-week continuance and asked the court to find that Rice was unable to afford an independent expert examination. The hearing officer denied the request on the ground that it was untimely. The hearing officer also made the following comments:
What triggers an independent evaluation? I don’t know when that is — what triggers — I mean, obviously, the request can be made and obviously the patient themselves can provide an independent evaluation. But I think the Court has to make a finding as to whether one is appropriate and then go to the issue of who pays for it.
It appears from these and other comments in the record that the hearing officer was unfamiliar with the relevant statute and, as a result, improperly put the burden on Rice to timely request and prove entitlement to an independent expert examination. We therefore reverse for further proceedings wherein the statutory requirements regarding the independent expert examination are met.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
NORTHCUTT, C.J., and FULMER and SILBERMAN, JJ„ Concur.