A 19-year-old Australian who fell from a tree and was left quadriplegic after a failed suicide attempt has failed in his effort to lay legal blame on a mental hospital that had discharged him eleven days earlier. Timothy Walker "sued the Sydney West Health Service for negligence, claiming not enough was done to care for him prior to the accident. He claimed the hospital should have prescribed him anti-depressant or anti-psychotic medication, counselled him and detained him as an involuntary patient for at least two weeks for assessment." However, a judge found that the health service had not rendered substandard care, that it properly declined to prescribe antidepressants because Walker would not promise to stay off liquor, and that it had followed up with home visits after Walker's discharge, during which he reported feeling better. Walker will, at least notionally, be liable for the hospital's legal expenses under the rule that costs follow the event (sometimes known as the "everywhere-but-America rule"). (Alyssa Braithwaite, "Would-be suicider fails in hospital sue bid", AAP/Daily Telegraph, May 25). Earlier: May 9.
Update: Australian's failed suicide try
Categories:
2 Comments
Recent Comments
- Deoxy on Update: Australian's failed su: "(sometimes known as the "ever
- Suicidemalpractice.net on Update: Australian's failed su: The US Fourth Circuit (VA, MD,
Categories
- About the site (535)
- Arbitration (18)
- Australia (80)
- Autos (144)
- Bad Medicine (133)
- Bad Medicine II (234)
- Canada (82)
- Chasing clients (124)
- Class Actions (310)
- Class Actions II (43)
- Crime and Punishment (338)
- Disabled Rights (151)
- Eat Drink and Be Merry (272)
- Environment (218)
- Ethics (325)
- Family Law (145)
- Fear of Flirting (114)
- Frenzied Skies (79)
- Guns (106)
- Law schools (17)
- Loser Pays (75)
- Media (457)
- Misc. (519)
- Personal Responsibility (279)
- Politics (321)
- Politics II (46)
- Procedure (98)
- Product (227)
- Roundups (176)
- Scandals (74)
- Schools (224)
- Sports (162)
- Tech (258)
- Tobacco (124)
- UK (204)
- Work (246)

The US Fourth Circuit (VA, MD, WV) ruled that involuntary commitment is permitted, but not legally required, nor a duty.
Discussed here:
http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/currie.html
And in another case, in this decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=4th&navby=case&no=971218P&exact=1
"(sometimes known as the "everywhere-but-America rule")"
HA! That was good. I may start using it...