PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff Philip E. Hahn appeals from a series of trial court orders dismissing his complaint against defendants.
Although this appeal concerns Mr. Hahn's 2008 psychiatric commitment, he asserted very similar claims in several earlier lawsuits, based on his previous psychiatric commitments to BRMC in 2005 and 2007. The factual background concerning that litigation is detailed in our opinion affirming the dismissal of those claims.
This is the factual record concerning the 2008 commitment. On March 5, 2008, Rosemarie Merino reported to the Tenafly Police Department that her husband, Donald Merino, had received a threatening letter from Mr. Hahn. The letter requested that Mr. Merino submit to a deposition, and included a list of questions he would be asked. The queries covered varied subject matter, including: requesting Mr. Merino's tax information; asking if Mr. Merino ever threatened Mr. Hahn verbally; asking if Mr. Merino arranged for him to be followed, tortured by his dentist, or run out of Hoboken; and asking if Mr. Merino had information about various flights, fires, and terrorist attacks. Because BRMC was listed as a defendant in Mr. Hahn's letter regarding his civil action, Tenafly Police Lieutenant Siegel called the hospital's help line and spoke with a representative from Care Plus about the situation. She stated that the organization knew Mr. Hahn, and would send a screener to his home.
After unsuccessfully attempting to locate plaintiff on March 5, Maksym Lider, a certified Care Plus screener, arrived at plaintiff's parents' home on March 6, 2008, in the company of several Paramus Police Department officers. Mr. Lider conducted a screening of Mr. Hahn, and also spoke to his parents. Although Mr. Hahn was responsive to Mr. Lider's initial questions, he quickly became uncooperative and began to suspiciously look out of the windows, as if someone were following him. Plaintiff's parents told Mr. Lider that he was not complying with his drug treatment regimen, and had become withdrawn and paranoid. Plaintiff, who had been increasingly ill and delusional for sixteen years, had a history of assaulting both himself and his parents.
Following the in-person evaluation, Mr. Lider determined that plaintiff needed further assessment and treatment, and required hospitalization to achieve a measure of psychiatric stability. As a result of that determination and pursuant to the civil commitment statute, Mr. Lider authorized the Paramus police to transport Mr. Hahn to the BRMC emergency room. One hour later, Mr. Lider completed the adult screening document, recommending commitment because a less restrictive treatment option was not available or appropriate.
When plaintiff arrived at the BRMC emergency room, he was given the Care Plus Consumer Handbook and Privacy Policy, and was offered treatment and crisis intervention counseling. Dr. Anthony Varriano, a BRMC employee authorized to issue screening certificates pursuant to a contract between Care Plus and the Division of Mental Health Services, evaluated Mr. Hahn and found that he was a danger to himself and others if left untreated. Dr. Varriano diagnosed him with paranoid schizophrenia, and executed the statutory Screening Certificate for Involuntary Commitment of Mentally Ill Adults certifying his conclusions at 10:40 p.m. Dr. Stephanie Barnes likewise diagnosed Mr. Hahn as paranoid schizophrenic and admitted him to BRMC.
On March 7, 2008, Mr. Hahn was evaluated by Dr. Michelle Ruvolo, a psychologist on his treatment team, who agreed with the prior determinations that he was a paranoid schizophrenic who posed a danger to himself or others if his condition was left untreated. Dr. Ruvolo executed the statutory Clinical Certificate for Involuntary Commitment of Mentally Ill Adults certifying her conclusions.
Plaintiff's Clinical and Screening Certificates were presented to Judge John J. Langan, Jr., who issued an order temporarily committing him to BRMC. A second follow-up hearing was scheduled for March 27, 2008, but never took place because Mr. Hahn was released on March 18.
In the days immediately following his commitment, Mr. Hahn remained paranoid, delusional and withdrawn, refusing to cooperate with hospital staff or take any medication. Consequently, he was placed on a "three-step" program designed for patients who refuse to accept treatment voluntarily. In accordance with the program, Dr. Ruvolo met Mr. Hahn to discuss the prescribed treatment and recommend that he comply; his treatment team met with him and explained the benefits and urged compliance with the treatment plan when he refused. The hospital's Medical Director authorized involuntary administration of medication when Mr. Hahn again refused to cooperate. Plaintiff received an injection of the antipsychotic medication Abilify over his objection on March 13, 2008.
After Mr. Hahn received the injection, his delusions decreased and he became compliant with his medication over the next few days. Mr. Hahn "stated [to his therapists] that he did well on Abilify and [agreed] to take that." He showed "significant improvement with no delusions elicited." On March 17, 2008, he executed a voluntary admission request. Because he was no longer an immediate danger to himself or to others while his schizophrenia was under control, Mr. Hahn was discharged on March 18, with a prescription for Abilify and a follow up treatment plan. However, according to his deposition testimony, Mr. Hahn stopped taking his medication soon after his release.
In April 2009, plaintiff filed a complaint challenging his psychiatric commitment as unjustified; asserting that he was medicated with Haldol and Benadryl, which he claimed were defective products; and contending that Abilify was a defective product and administered against his will.
On this appeal, Mr. Hahn primarily contends that summary judgment should not have been granted to defendants, he was entitled to a jury trial, and he should have been permitted to amend his complaint. He presents the following twenty-three points of argument for our consideration:
Although defendant's statement of facts contains no citations to the record, contrary to
Plaintiff asserted professional negligence claims against BRMC and Care Plus, contending that he was falsely imprisoned because he did not need to be committed, and that he was given unnecessary medication. With very limited exceptions, short-term psychiatric care facilities and screening services are entitled to statutory immunity in connection with psychiatric commitments of patients.
Nor did plaintiff serve an expert report challenging the commitment procedures used, the need for the commitment, or the appropriateness of his psychiatric treatment. As we held in our prior opinion, expert reports were required because none of plaintiff's professional negligence claims is of the type that falls within the common knowledge of jurors.
Nor did plaintiff provide expert reports or other legally competent evidence concerning the medications at issue. Plaintiff is not an expert, and his purported self-authored "expert reports" about Haldol, Abilify and Benadryl would not satisfy the requirement for expert testimony concerning alleged defects in those drugs. The common knowledge doctrine does not apply to those claims either.
Plaintiff's claims against Bristol Myers and Otsuka, the manufacturers of Abilify, were also properly dismissed with prejudice under the entire controversy and res judicata doctrines. Plaintiff should have included in the previous litigation all of his claims concerning his 2005 and 2008 treatments with Abilify. In that prior lawsuit, he made the same claim that Abilify exacerbated his detached retina, a condition that was diagnosed in 2005.
Plaintiff did not oppose the summary judgment motion filed by the Paramus Police Department, which resulted in the dismissal of his complaint against the Department by order dated August 14, 2009. Having failed to oppose the summary judgment motion, he cannot challenge the August 14 order on this appeal. We will not consider arguments on appeal that were not presented to the trial court.
Plaintiff's false imprisonment complaint against the Tenafly Police Department was properly dismissed for lack of evidence. That defendant introduced undisputed evidence that its staff had no personal contact with Mr. Hahn. A Tenafly police officer called Care Plus to report a possible need for the screening service to evaluate Mr. Hahn. The Tenafly Police Department is entitled to statutory immunity for that activity, pursuant to
Affirmed.