I meant finding out if there was actually someone there with the authority to order a psych hold when he was committed and if he actually spoke with that person. If the hold was 'legit', I wouldn't bother fighting it unless the lawyer tells you otherwise, because I doubt claiming false imprisonment on a psych hold 6+ months after the fact would gain much traction.Involuntary holds are still billed to the patient. It is possible, I would imagine, to fight a 5150 and treat it as false imprisonment. But, you would have to get statements from the nurses at least. Vanderhoof would definitely be more up on the know on this subject as he's a psychiatric NP.
Yeah this is my concern also. I wont deny the care happened, so technically they can also validate the bill that way too. It was just not what i ever intended to have and I know for a fact not what I needed. The other people in the same ward put it in perspective in a ridiculous way that caused me to never feel so normal before.I meant finding out if there was actually someone there with the authority to order a psych hold when he was committed and if he actually spoke with that person. If the hold was 'legit', I wouldn't bother fighting it unless the lawyer tells you otherwise, because I doubt claiming false imprisonment on a psych hold 6+ months after the fact would gain much traction.
Psych holds can generally be done by anyone who's an RN or higher and are incredibly difficult to fight. Unless whoever filled it out blatantly lied, there's pretty much no chance of winningI meant finding out if there was actually someone there with the authority to order a psych hold when he was committed and if he actually spoke with that person. If the hold was 'legit', I wouldn't bother fighting it unless the lawyer tells you otherwise, because I doubt claiming false imprisonment on a psych hold 6+ months after the fact would gain much traction.
That is the case in MO....as long as the facility is recognized by the State as being licensed or certified to do 96 hour holds, RN, Social Workers etc can make the call. The person does not need to be suicidal nor homicidal...verbal threats and the intake person's professional opinion that there is a likelihood of harm to self or others is the standard.Psych holds can generally be done by anyone who's an RN or higher and are incredibly difficult to fight. Unless whoever filled it out blatantly lied, there's pretty much no chance of winning
That's the way it is. No one can look into a patient's mind and determine if they "really mean it" when they say they want to harm themselves or another person. Tarisk says he was misunderstood and being sarcastic, but as a health care provider you don't have the luxury of second-guessing. If someone says they want to kill themselves or another person, you need to act on it.That'll teach you to seek help!
Seriously, good luck and keep us posted. This is such utter bullshit. In the same situation I don't think I'd ever pay. Whoever wrote the rule that said they weren't allowed to let you leave is the one who should be on the hook.
While I appreciate your analysys, the answer to your last part is yes and no.That's the way it is. No one can look into a patient's mind and determine if they "really mean it" when they say they want to harm themselves or another person. Tarisk says he was misunderstood and being sarcastic, but as a health care provider you don't have the luxury of second-guessing. If someone says they want to kill themselves or another person, you need to act on it.
Imagine, instead, Tarisk convinced the hospital to release him, and then he went home and killed himself. Or worse, he was released and then killed someone else (had he threatened someone else). Would you be back here saying "OMG, his family needs to sue that hospital! How could they discharge him! Why didn't they take him seriously!"
Also, he was an inpatient for 4 days. Clearly there is more to this story. This wasn't some 24-hour hold. He needed a thorough evaluation, and probably treatment.
It's not a 24 hour hold, it's usually 72 hours. At least that's how it works in Nevada. I'd say about half the people who are placed on them aren't actual threats to themselves and are similar to Tarisk's situation.That's the way it is. No one can look into a patient's mind and determine if they "really mean it" when they say they want to harm themselves or another person. Tarisk says he was misunderstood and being sarcastic, but as a health care provider you don't have the luxury of second-guessing. If someone says they want to kill themselves or another person, you need to act on it.
Imagine, instead, Tarisk convinced the hospital to release him, and then he went home and killed himself. Or worse, he was released and then killed someone else (had he threatened someone else). Would you be back here saying "OMG, his family needs to sue that hospital! How could they discharge him! Why didn't they take him seriously!"
Also, he was an inpatient for 4 days. Clearly there is more to this story. This wasn't some 24-hour hold. He needed a thorough evaluation, and probably treatment.
Yes, I'm quite aware of that now. But I was never in a place of serious thought about it and I wasn't there for that kind of help. It's one of those things where yes, they're clearly looking out for things, because sure, they're liable if I did get let go and ended up offing myself.Sorry man, I feel really bad for you getting hit with collections...but, people are just doing their jobs when they put you on an involuntary hold. They thought you were going to harm yourself and even asked you if you had a plan. You said "I dunno". WHY!!! Why would you say that? The "plan" itself is what causes psych holds.
If it's involuntary it should damned well be free. If the hospital or state has to cover the costs they won't be doing it unless absolutely necessary.It's not a 24 hour hold, it's usually 72 hours. At least that's how it works in Nevada. I'd say about half the people who are placed on them aren't actual threats to themselves and are similar to Tarisk's situation.
Unfortunately, it's all about liability and CYA.
I don't know, there's lots of stuff a hospital might do to save your life when you are unconscious or whatever.If it's involuntary it should damned well be free. If the hospital or state has to cover the costs they won't be doing it unless absolutely necessary.
Aid rendered while unconscious != aid forced upon you unwillingly. Depriving someone of life or liberty against their will is criminal if they haven't broken a law. Forcing them to pay for it afterwards on top of that is disgusting.I don't know, there's lots of stuff a hospital might do to save your life when you are unconscious or whatever.
I guess I'm not sure why just anyone can order a hold, though. Seems like it'd be pretty easy to demolish your average RN on the stand in a false imprisonment suit.
I should have used the word incompetent or incapacitated, then.Aid rendered while unconscious != aid forced upon you unwillingly. Depriving someone of life or liberty against their will is criminal if they haven't broken a law. Forcing them to pay for it afterwards on top of that is disgusting.
I just think they should have a compromise, if some hospitals don't already. Let someone of lower tier do the assessment, give their opinion to a doc and have them in whatever they're doing then come in as tier 2 and talk with you, get a feel for it. ask you the shit they're trained and educated to ask you on and THEN if still the case make the call to say "it's going to be best if you stay". But when it felt like what seemed was a glorified secretary doing it, it's just downright insulting.I should have used the word incompetent or incapacitated, then.
I don't disagree that it appears to be used in an extreme overreach, especially if what Kuriin is saying is true in that basically anyone who works there can detain you.
Acting like an idiot in a Hospital and making suicidal statements is pretty dumb. You trigger alerts that you are a harm to yourself and others.Aid rendered while unconscious != aid forced upon you unwillingly. Depriving someone of life or liberty against their will is criminal if they haven't broken a law. Forcing them to pay for it afterwards on top of that is disgusting.