Confirmation of hospital’s position that a physician may override statutory Baker Act requirements
A recent video deposition shared by a Florida attorney online clearly shows that the Baker Act Receiving Facility (BARF) involved clearly believes that they are above the law.
Summary of Deposition Transcript
The witness explains that Mease Dunedin Hospital’s policies and procedures serve only as guidance for physician-directed care under the Baker Act, rather than binding rules. When asked whether non-compliance with Florida Administrative Code section 5.17037 would violate those policies, the witness defers, stating physicians control care decisions and can override that provision. Repeated questioning confirms the hospital’s position that a physician may override statutory Baker Act requirements in any given situation, though the precise limits of such overrides are not articulated in the policies.
A complete transcript of the deposition is available upon request and the video may be viewed at this link:
Deposition Fail – Mease Dunedin Hospital believes its physicians can override the Baker Act
Mease Dunedin is a BARF that accepts children, adults and the elderly for involuntary psychiatric examinations.
Unfortunately, the viewpoint expressed in this deposition is not unique to Mease Dunedin but a common method of handling individuals perceived to be in crisis.
A deposition of Martha Lenderman, who is frequently cited for her expertise on Florida’s Baker Act, revealed that not only did her own Baker Act Bench Guide contradict her sworn affidavit in the case of a man being illegally detained under the Baker Act but that there were numerous false statements made by Lenderman.
The court ruled in favor of the victim.
A complete transcript of the deposition is available upon request and the video may be viewed at this link:
Deposition of Martha Lenderman
Additionally, the hotline that our organization operates has recorded numerous instances where psychiatrists and BARFs overtly state that they do not have to follow the law.
Examples of the flagrant disregard for the laws of this state are below.
There needs to be more accountability and stricter penalties for the violations of the mental health law and the rights of those taken into custody under the Baker Act.
Florida Baker Act Receiving Facilities Refusing to Follow the Law
Central Florida Behavioral Health
Child Victim A – age 17
The parents of Victim A contacted CCHR after their child had been Baker Acted. On August 16th, Victim A was arguing with the mother about going to school and the mother threatened to call 911 if Victim A would not agree to go to school. The mother called 911 and when Law enforcement arrived Victim A told the responding officer about taking 3 of the mother’s anti-anxiety pills and so the officer initiated a Baker Act at 8am. Victim A was originally transported to Springbrook. Springbrook does not accept minors and so Victim A was then transported to Central Florida Behavioral Health at around 4:30pm. [At this point over 32 hours have elapsed since the initiation]
CCHR educated the parents on the law, their rights and specifically on the change to the Baker Act which now states that “for a minor, the examination shall be initiated within 12 hours after the patient’s arrival at the facility” and on the fact that their child should have been transported to Central Florida Behavioral Health on the day on the initiation and not the next day. CCHR provided the parents with excerpts of the law and instructed them to speak with the facility administrator or Patient Advocate at Central Florida Behavioral Health.
The parents reported to CCHR that the father spoke to several people at Central Florida Behavioral Health and that none of them seemed to be aware of the amendment to the law pertaining to minors. The facility staff insisted they were going to keep Victim A for 72 hours, that an exam by a therapy tech (not a psychologist or psychiatrist) was all that was needed and besides the psychiatrist would not be in until after the 12 hours were up so the 12 hour rule didn’t count and they didn’t care what he said, they were right and he was wrong.
The parents were then contacted by someone in the billing office for Central Florida Behavioral Health about the insurance to cover Victim A and the father stated that he was not going to pay and that he totally disagreed with the way they were handling his child – disregard and ignorance of the law, no parental consent -and he would be there to pick her up in the morning.
An hour after that conversation with the billing department someone called to say that Victim A’s release papers had been signed and that their child was free to go home.
PEMHS – Pinellas Park
Child Victim B – age 17
The parents of Victim B called CCHR Florida because their child had been Baker Acted. Victim B is an amateur photographer and was out at Clearwater Beach taking photos of the full moon from the top of a parking garage. A policeman came along and asked Victim B if he ever felt like jumping off the roof. Victim B started kidding around with the office about this and was Baker Acted and taken to PEMHS around midnight. Victim B was evaluated and the parents were told that their child would be released the next day but on then on the 7th the parents were told that they wanted to keep Victim B another day and that Victim B “must stay for the entire 72 hours”.
CCHR educated the parents on the law, provided them with excerpts from the law and instructed them to speak with the administrator.
PEHMS insisted that they had to keep Victim B for 72 hours and the family had to hire an attorney to secure the safe release of their child. Their child was eventually released but not without an argument from PEHMS about what the new amendment stating the 12-hour examination period for minors really meant.
Centerstone
Child Victim C – age 12
The mother called CCHR Florida because her child had been Baker Acted. Victim C had been sexually molested by a grandparent and is also being bullied at school. After a bullying incident at school Victim C to cry and was sent to the assistant principal’s office. The assistant principal did not want to deal with it so he sent Victim C to the School Resource Office (SRO), and in the conversation with the SRO Victim C said, “I sometimes just want to die!” so the SRO Baker Acted the child.
Victim C was taken to Centerstone. When the mother called CCHR she had already spoken with another group which had given the mother good advice and had educated the mother on the law and especially the new amendment.
When the mother questioned a nurse at Centerstone about the change to the law since Victim C had already been at Centerstone for over 24 hours the nurse just smiled and said, “We’ve found a way to get around that. We just have a technician do an evaluation within the 12 hour time period, and then when the psychiatrist gets around to it he/she does the actual evaluation”.
After speaking with CCHR, the mother went back to Centerstone with copies of the law and an attorney to try to get Victim C released.
Centerstone refused to meet with the family attorney and continued to refuse to acknowledge the amendment to the Baker Act for minors. Furthermore, when Victim C was finally examined by the Medical Director, Ranjay Holder, MD, he stated to the mother that Victim C did not meet the criteria for the Baker Act but he was going to keep her for 72 hours anyway because he wanted to start her on Klonopin for her PTSD.
The mother refused to consent to the Klonopin and asked that Victim C be released immediately. Dr. Holder stated that he was going to keep Victim C for 72 hours. Victim C was released after 72 hours.
Miami Children’s Hospital
Child Victim D – age 7
A father called CCHR because his 7-year-old child had been Baker Acted. Victim D became angry at school and shouted about throw himself/herself from the balcony. The school psychologist called Victim D’s parents and suggested that they take the child to the hospital to be counseled.
The parents took Victim D to Miami Children’s Hospital voluntarily and the hospital initiated a Baker Act on the child telling the parents they would hold Victim D for 72 hours.
CCHR educated the father on the law provided excerpts of the appropriate sections of the law and instructed the father to speak with the administrator. The hospital refused to acknowledge the new amendment and restated that they were going to keep Victim D for 72 hours. CCHR then referred the father to an attorney. The attorney arrived at the hospital, threatened to sue them for insurance fraud and Victim D was released within 15 minutes.
Fort Lauderdale Hospital
Child Victim E – age 14
A mother called CCHR Florida because her child had been Baker Acted. Victim E was suffering from a bad headache and decided to take some of the mother’s migraine medicine without her knowledge. The medicine made Victim E feel very bad, so the mother took the child to the an emergency room in Fort Lauderdale as they are from Tampa and far away from their primary care doctor. In the ER they wanted to take blood, do a urine test and Victim E did not want to and became aggressive in response to being held down for them to do the tests. At no time did Victim E threaten to harm self or anyone else but the ER staff Baker Acted the child due to the aggression.
Victim E was transported to Fort Lauderdale Hospital. When the mother contacted CCHR, Victim E had already been held for 24 hours. The mother was aware of the 12-hour examination period and requested that he be released. Fort Lauderdale Hospital refused, saying that another psychiatric exam was required and anyway they planned to keep Victim E for 72 hours no matter what the law said. CCHR sent the mother excerpts of the law and instructions for speaking with the administrator.
The mother called CCHR back to say that Fort Lauderdale Hospital would not release Victim E until the mother scheduled a follow-up appointment for Victim E in Fort Lauderdale. Victim E and his family live in Tampa.
LifeStream Behavioral Center
Child Victim F – age 13
A mother called CCHR Florida because her child had been Baker Acted. The mother stated that her child had taken a handful of Advil and that they had taken Victim F to an emergency room. The emergency room Baker Acted the child and had Victim F transported to LifeStream. Victim F has no prior history of mental illness.
CCHR educated the parents on the law and specifically the change to the examination period for a minor. LifeStream told the parents that they had never heard of this law and did not initiate an examination within the 12 hour period.
Victim D’s father pushed on the point of the facility needing to follow the law the LifeStream threatened to call the police and then called the police on father. The responding officers stated that they did not think that the facility would have this wrong and so using the information provided by CCHR the parents showed the police the statute and directed them to the legislative website to see the law themselves. LifeStream release the child.
JFK Memorial Hospital North
Child Victim G – age 15
A father contacted CCHR Florida because his child had been Baker Acted. Victim G, 15, was having a bad day, wrote a suicide note and brought it to the Guidance Counselor at school, who, together with the School Resource Office, Baker Acted the child and Victim G was taken initially to South County Mental Health Clinic in Delray Beach. This facility cannot handle children/adolescents so Victim G was transferred to JFK North.
CCHR educated the father on the law, especially the new amendment for minors, sent him excerpts of the law and instructed him to speak with the administrator about his child. Despite what the father showed to them, JFK maintained that there was no such amendment to the law changing the examination period to 12 hours for a child.
CCHR next advised the parents to retain an attorney. The parents hired an attorney versed in the Baker Act and this attorney called to speak with the administrator but was told the administrator was out to lunch. The father was in the hospital and overheard the nursing staff talking about how the administrator never takes calls from attorneys. The father contacted the attorney back and reported what he had overheard. Simultaneously, CCHR Florida received a call from someone calling themselves “Judy” who refused to state where they were calling from but who wanted to know the exact reference on the amendment to the law concerning minors. After giving her the website link to the statute online, CCHR looked up the phone number used by “Judy” and it was the same area of the JFK facility.
Later in the evening the administrator met with the parents and told them that their child would be released the next day between 10:30am and 11am. As of 12:30pm on the day of the promised release Victim G had not been released and no one would speak to the parents except to tell them that the doctor must examine the child again. CCHR advised the parents to again enlist the help of their attorney as absolutely none of the actions required to be done by law had been completed by JFK.
With the help of the attorney these parents were finally able to obtain the safe release of their child.
