In Re The Detention Of E.i.

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

FILED
1/13/2025
Court of Appeals
Division |
State of Washington

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION ONE
In re the Detention of:
No. 86525-1-I
E.I.,
DIVISION ONE
Appellant.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION

PER CURIAM — E.I. appeals the trial court’s 14-day involuntary commitment order.
E.l. contends, and respondent Fairfax Behavioral Health Hospital (Fairfax) concedes,
her counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to seek dismissal of the petition
for detention based on lack of compliance with a provision of the involuntary treatment
act (ITA), RCW 71.05.154. We accept the concession. The designated crisis responder
who recommended E.I.’s initial detention failed to comply with the statutory obligation to
consult with or review the written observations and recommendations of the examining
medical professional. E.|. suffered prejudice as a result. We reverse and remand.

RCW 71.05.153 allows a “designated crisis responder” who “receives information
alleging that a person, as the result of a behavioral health disorder ... is in imminent
danger because of being gravely disabled,” to take that person into emergency
temporary custody for evaluation and treatment. In making this decision, if the person
in question is located in an emergency room, RCW 71.05.154 requires the crisis
responder to consult with the examining medical professional, or if unavailable, to

review the written observations and opinions of that professional:

No. 85525-1-I/2
-2-
If a person subject to evaluation under RCW 71.05.150 or 71.05.153 is
located in an emergency room at the time of evaluation, the designated
crisis responder conducting the evaluation shall take serious consideration
of observations and opinions by an examining emergency room physician,
*advanced 	registered 	nurse 	practitioner, 	or 	physician 	assistant 	in
determining whether detention under this chapter is appropriate. The
designated crisis responder must document his or her consultation with
this professional, if the professional is available, or his or her review of the
professional's 	written 	observations 	or 	opinions 	regarding 	whether
detention of the person is appropriate.
In In re Detention of K.R., 195 Wn. App. 843, 847-48, 381 P.3d 158 (2016), Division
Two of this court held that a violation of a former version of this statute amounted to a
total disregard for the provisions of the ITA, warranting reversal of the commitment
order. See RCW 	71.05.010(2) (courts 	must 	focus 	on 	the 	merits 	of 	a 	petition 	for
involuntary commitment unless statutory requirements were “totally disregarded”). As
Fairfax concedes, the crisis responder here neither consulted with the examining
medical professional nor documented her review of the medical professional's written
observations and opinion as to the need for E.I.’s detention. And, because it is
reasonably likely that the court would have dismissed the petition under the authority
of K.R., had counsel raised this issue, E.I. has met her burden to establish that she was
prejudiced by the deficient representation of counsel. 	See In re Det. of T.A.H.-L., 123
Wn. 	App. 	172, 	178-79, 	97 	P.3d 	767 	(2004) (respondent 	in 	a 	civil 	commitment
proceeding has a statutory right to effective assistance of counsel and the Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), standard applies).
We reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate the 14-day commitment
order.

No. 85525-1-1/3

FOR THE COURT:

bik, JZ

Abn 7.