Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • AAPL

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
  • AAPL
  • Alerts
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
CorrectionCorrection

Statement of Correction

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online December 2015, 43 (4) 510;
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Chavez JX, Lloyd M: Boundaries of Absolute Immunity for Clinicians J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 43(2):237–239, 2015

In the Legal Digest article “Boundaries of Absolute Immunity for Clinicians” in the June 2015 issue of The Journal, the authors erroneously interpreted and reported the findings of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Thomas v. Kaven, Straits, and Del Fabbro, 765 F.3d 1183, a case involving the hospitalization of a minor and the rights of the parent plaintiffs. The authors attributed to the circuit court rulings that the defendant clinicians in the case had violated the law when no such rulings had been made by that court. We take this opportunity to correct the erroneous statements.

The authors reported that the circuit court ruled that treating clinicians in the circumstances of the case “should” contact a children's court attorney under New Mexico Children's Code. In fact, the circuit court only noted that, under the relevant statute, clinicians “can request that the children's court attorney initiate involuntary residential treatment proceedings” after which the children's court attorney “may petition the court for such proceedings” (N.M. Stat. § 32A-6A-20(J)).

The circuit court further noted that the clinicians were not required to seek judicial permission to place the patient on a temporary medical hold. The circuit court did not find that the clinicians had failed to follow procedures, as stated in the article. Rather, the circuit court noted that the clinicians were not authorized by statute to petition the state court directly, a fact that was relevant to the discussion of whether the clinicians were entitled to absolute immunity for the decision to place the minor on a medical hold.

The authors also misinterpreted the circuit court's ruling regarding the appropriateness of the medical hold. The circuit court did not attribute to the clinicians any failures in this regard. Instead, it noted that there was insufficient information in the record of discovery to permit a determination as to whether clinicians of reasonable competence could disagree as to the dangers of discharging the minor. Thus, the constitutional question regarding the medical hold could not be resolved on the record before the court.

The circuit court did not determine that “the clinicians had violated clearly established laws” as reported in the article. The Tenth Circuit held that the district court had erred in granting the defendant's motion to dismiss on the right to familial association claim concerning the medical hold, reversed that decision, and remanded that matter for further proceedings to develop the facts. That matter remains open.

The circuit court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim regarding their right to direct their child's medical care, holding that the plaintiffs had not shown a violation of a clearly established right.

The Tenth Circuit Court did not find fault with the clinicians' behaviors and no such attribution should have been made in the report of the case decision.

The Journal deeply regrets the errors reported in the article. We offer to the defendant clinicians our sincere apologies for these inaccuracies and ask our readers to take note of the corrections offered herein.

  • © 2015 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online: 43 (4)
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
Vol. 43, Issue 4
1 Dec 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in recommending The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law site.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Statement of Correction
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Statement of Correction
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Dec 2015, 43 (4) 510;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Statement of Correction
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Dec 2015, 43 (4) 510;
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Correction
Show more Correction

Similar Articles

Site Navigation

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive
  • Information for Authors
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts

Other Resources

  • Academy Website
  • AAPL Meetings
  • AAPL Annual Review Course

Reviewers

  • Peer Reviewers

Other Publications

  • AAPL Practice Guidelines
  • AAPL Newsletter
  • AAPL Ethics Guidelines
  • AAPL Amicus Briefs
  • Landmark Cases

Customer Service

  • Cookie Policy
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Order Physical Copy

Copyright © 2023 by The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law