Home      Login

Abstract: 

Can a private contractor providing psychiatric evaluations be sued as a state agent for failure to treat when no treatment relationship exists? In this case, a private psychiatrist performed a mental health assessment that determined a detainee did not meet the Michigan criteria for civil commitment. The detainee sued the psychiatrist in a section 1983 action arguing that her determination had kept the detainee from qualifying for and receiving treatment for his “uncontrolled psychotic state”, which worsened while in jail custody causing serious harm to his mental and physical health. The legal question decided here was not whether the psychiatrist had harmed the plaintiff, but rather whether a private psychiatrist could be sued at all, since she had provided only a gatekeeping function and had not actually treated the patient. The appellate court applied a “public function” analysis in determining that the psychiatrist was in fact serving as an agent of the state.

Keywords: Carl v. Muskegon County , 763 F.3d 592; West v. Atkins , 487 U.S. 42;

Affiliations:  1: Executive Editor.