Citizens Concerned About Valley Mental Health Center v. Hansbarger

309 S.E.2d 17, 172 W. Va. 519, 1983 W. Va. LEXIS 589
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 10, 1983
DocketNo. 15808
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 309 S.E.2d 17 (Citizens Concerned About Valley Mental Health Center v. Hansbarger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Citizens Concerned About Valley Mental Health Center v. Hansbarger, 309 S.E.2d 17, 172 W. Va. 519, 1983 W. Va. LEXIS 589 (W. Va. 1983).

Opinion

McHUGH, Justice:

This original proceeding in mandamus is before this Court upon a petition filed by an organization known as Citizens Concerned About Valley Mental Health Center, et al., in which the petitioners raise regulatory and accountability issues with respect to Valley Comprehensive Community Mental Health Center, located in the Morgan-town, West Virginia, area. By order entered on February 8, 1983, this Court issued a rule directing the respondents to show cause why relief should not be awarded against them. This Court has before it the petition for a writ of mandamus, the responses to that petition, all matters of record and the briefs and argument of counsel.

Pursuant to orders of this Court, briefs amicus curiae were filed in this action by Pamela S. Fawley and the Association of Community Mental Health/Mental Retardation Programs of West Virginia.

The petitioners include various citizens who reside in the area served by Valley Comprehensive Community Mental Health Center and who bring this action individually and on behalf of certain mentally retarded persons. The respondents include officers of the West Virginia Department of Health and officers of Valley Comprehensive Community Mental Health Center.

Valley Comprehensive Community Mental Health Center (hereinafter “Valley”) is a private, nonprofit corporation principally operating upon property it leases from the [521]*521State of West Virginia in the Morgantown, Monongalia County, area. Since 1974, Valley has provided certain mental health services for Monongalia, Marion, Preston and Taylor counties. It is administered locally by a Citizen Board of Directors with respondent O. B. Fawley as its director and respondent Joseph Panepinto as its associate director. Valley receives funds from the State of West Virginia and, pursuant to W. Va. Code, 27-2A-1 [1977], is subject to rules and regulations promulgated by the Board of Health of the West Virginia Department of Health.

I

Contentions of the Parties

The principal contention of the petitioners in this action is that Valley is not providing needed mental health services to the community it serves.1 The primary cause of that lack of services, the petitioners contend, is the West Virginia Department of Health. According to the petitioners, the Department of Health has failed to promulgate rules and regulations which would require Valley to provide certain basic mental health services to the community. The petitioners contend that the Department of Health has a responsibility to insure, through its regulatory power, that certain basic mental health services are provided to the public. Thus, the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel the Department of Health to promulgate such rules and regulations.

A second issue raised by the petitioners relates to the accountability of Valley to the public, particularly with regard to the use of state funds. The petitioners contend, inter alia, that state funds have been misused through the establishment at Valley of inflated salaries and inflated employee benefits and privileges. The petitioners contend that the Department of Health is ultimately responsible for that alleged misuse of state funds because of a failure by the Department of Health to effectively supervise those funds.

On the other hand, the respondents contend that the type of mental health services provided by Valley and the management of Valley are, in fact, regulated by the Department of Health, at least to an extent sufficient to deny the petitioners relief in mandamus.

However, the respondents further contend that Valley has the authority to estimate the mental health needs of its community and to determine which specific services it shall provide to meet those needs. The respondents contend that additional state rules and regulations sought by the petitioners, which would require that Valley provide particular mental health services, would diminish community involvement in the decision making process at Valley concerning services and would diminish the flexibility Valley needs to serve its constituency.

With respect to the issue of accountability, the respondents contend that Valley’s management is monitored by the Department of Health and that, in any event, the management of Valley, including its use of funds, rests largely within the discretion of the Citizen Board of Directors.2

II

Statutory, Regulatory and Accountability Standards

A. The Statutes

The West Virginia Department of [522]*522Health3 through its Board of Health and Director has a duty to insure the effective delivery of mental health services in this State. W.Va. Code, 16-1-1 [1977].4 That responsibility as it concerns respondent Valley is illustrated by the provisions of W.Va.Code, 27-2A-1 [1977]. That statute provides as follows:

(a) The director of health is authorized and directed to establish, maintain and operate comprehensive community mental health centers and comprehensive mental retardation facilities, at such locations within the State as may be determined by the director in accordance with the state’s comprehensive mental health plan and the state’s comprehensive mental retardation plan. Such facilities may be integrated with a general health care or other facility or remain separate as the board of health may by rules and regulations prescribe: Provided, that nothing contained herein shall be construed to allow the department of health to assume the operation of comprehensive regional mental health centers or comprehensive mental retardation facilities which have been heretofore established according to law and which, as of the effective date of this article, are being operated by local nonprofit organizations.
(b) Any new mental health centers and comprehensive mental retardation facilities herein provided for may be operated and controlled by the department of health or operated, maintained and controlled by local nonprofit organizations and licensed according to rules and regulations promulgated by the board of health. All comprehensive regional mental health and mental retardation facilities licensed in the State shall:
(1) Have a written plan for the provision of diagnostic, treatment, supportive and aftercare services, and written policies and procedures for implementing these services;
(2) Have sufficient employees appropriately qualified to provide these services;
[523]*523(3) Maintain accurate medical and other records for all patients receiving services;
(4) Render outpatient services in the aftercare of any patient discharged from an inpatient hospital, consistent with the needs of the individual. No person who can be treated as an outpatient at a community mental health center shall be admitted involuntarily into a state hospital.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State ex rel. Walker v. Mental Hygiene Commissioners
614 S.E.2d 727 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2005)
State ex rel. M.K. v. Black
318 S.E.2d 433 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1984)
CITIZENS CONCERNED, ETC. v. Hansbarger
309 S.E.2d 17 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
309 S.E.2d 17, 172 W. Va. 519, 1983 W. Va. LEXIS 589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citizens-concerned-about-valley-mental-health-center-v-hansbarger-wva-1983.