Leininger v. Franklin Medical Center

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that claims for civil rights violation and false imprisonment, arising out of civil commitment are not appropriate for tribunal review
• finding referral unwarranted because plaintiff’s claimed harm arose from failure to comply with civil commitment statute and was unrelated to medical judgment or treatment
• contrasting an evaluation of a psychiatrist’s failure to comply with the civil commitment statute, which did not fall within the competence of a tribunal, with mistakes in “medical decisions,” including “medical judgment or treatment,” which do
• claim that doctors did not follow requirements of commitment statute not subject to G. L. c. 231, § 60B, because it does not involve physicians’ medical judgment
• failure to examine not excused, even due to emergency nature of case, where there was no refusal to consent to examination
• civil rights claim against a physician for committing plaintiff to a psychiatric facility without examining her as required by G.L.c. 123, §12 not subject to the tribunal statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).