Preview:

a0318-07.opn.html

Original Wordprocessor Version
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.) The status of this decision is unpublished

Original Wordprocessor Version This case can also be found at *CITE_PENDING*. (NOTE: The status of this decision is published.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0318-07T10318-07T1 PHILIP HAHN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BERGEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant-Respondent. _____________________________________________________________

Submitted May 12, 2008 - Decided Before Judges Graves and Sabatino. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-148-07. Philip Hahn, appellant pro se. Vasios, Kelly & Strollo, attorneys for respondent (Robert J. Logan, on the brief). PER CURIAM Plaintiff Philip Hahn appeals from an order dated August 3, 2007, granting summary judgment in favor of

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a0318-07.opn.html[4/20/2013 1:35:25 PM]

a0318-07.opn.html

defendant, Bergen Regional Medical Center. We affirm. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged he was "wrongfully diagnosed and admitted" to a medical program at Bergen Regional Medical Center on May 23, 2005. And during oral argument on August 3, 2007, plaintiff advised the trial court as follows: I was taken to the emergency room at Bergen Regional Medical Center on the 14th of April. Screened and admitted for a three-week program at which point I was released and it was recommended that I go into a day program. And the complaint that you have before you, [Docket No. L-148-07], regards that treatment. Now, from the time I was picked up by the police until the time I was discharged and it recommended that I go into the day treatment program, I was never given an opportunity to address . . . the reasons for my commitment . . . . And I think that . . . it was just . . . the hospital reached the wrong conclusions. I mean . . . there are things in the records that are clearly wrong, you know, things like I was sending letters to my neighbors. This is clearly wrong, . . . there's things in my records that say things like I can't handle money. I mean . . . items were simply checked off by the admitting staff without asking me any questions whatsoever. So, definitely from a good faith point of view . . . the hospital staff . . . can't be granted immunity. Nevertheless, the court ruled that defendant was entitled to immunity under N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.7 because there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding defendant's good faith. Ziemba v. Riverview Med. Ctr., 275 N.J. Super. 293, 300 (App. Div. 1994) ("[T]hose involved in the involuntary commitment process enjoy an absolute immunity from civil or criminal liability if they acted in good faith and took reasonable steps towards effectuating the commitment."). Affirmed. (continued) (continued) 5 A-0318-07T1 May 30, 2008 0x01 graphic

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a0318-07.opn.html[4/20/2013 1:35:25 PM]

a0318-07.opn.html

This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden. This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a0318-07.opn.html[4/20/2013 1:35:25 PM]



Download a0318-07.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law