## Facts

- Fair Oaks Hospital sued Susan L. Pocrass and her husband, Michael Pocrass, to collect unpaid charges for Susan’s psychiatric hospitalization.
- Susan filed a third-party complaint against the hospital and several psychiatrists, including Charles Ciolino, M.D., asserting claims including false imprisonment and negligence/medical malpractice arising from her involuntary commitment.
- Susan had been evaluated by Dr. Ciolino twice in 1989 and was diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder; she refused further treatment.
- After Michael reported worsening behavior, Dr. Ciolino went to the Pocrass home with police officers to evaluate whether involuntary commitment was warranted.
- Dr. Ciolino concluded Susan was mentally ill and dangerous to herself, completed a physician certification, and directed police to restrain her; she was strapped to a stretcher and transported by ambulance to Fair Oaks against her will.
- At the hospital, a second psychiatrist (Dr. Patel) signed another physician certification based on limited examination and information provided by Dr. Ciolino.
- Later the same day, paperwork including the two certificates was presented to a municipal court judge, who issued an order of temporary commitment.
- Susan remained confined at Fair Oaks for about a month; after hearings, she was ultimately ordered released when found no longer dangerous.
- Before trial, Susan moved in limine for a ruling that Dr. Ciolino was liable as a matter of law for false imprisonment and negligence based on alleged noncompliance with New Jersey’s civil commitment statute.

## Issues

1. Whether a psychiatrist who procures a patient’s initial seizure and transport for involuntary hospitalization without statutory authorization is liable, as a matter of law, for false imprisonment.
2. Whether violation of New Jersey’s civil commitment statute establishes negligence per se (or malpractice as a matter of law), or is merely evidence of negligence for the factfinder.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion in limine in part and denied it in part.
- The court held Dr. Ciolino liable for false imprisonment as a matter of law for the initial seizure and transport because the confinement was procured without legal authority under the commitment statute.
- The court refused to hold Dr. Ciolino negligent or liable for malpractice as a matter of law, ruling that statutory noncompliance is evidence of negligence but not negligence per se; the standard-of-care question remained for trial.

## Legal Principles

- False imprisonment is an unlawful restraint of freedom of movement; liability attaches upon confinement without legal justification, regardless of motive.
- For involuntary psychiatric commitment, statutory safeguards must be strictly followed because the deprivation of liberty is substantial.
- A later judicial commitment order does not retroactively legalize an earlier unlawful seizure; false imprisonment is complete at the moment of unauthorized restraint.
- In statutory tort analysis, violation of a protective statute may be evidence of negligence but does not automatically establish negligence per se; professional negligence/malpractice generally requires factfinding on the applicable standard of care.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that procuring an involuntary psychiatric seizure and transport outside the statutory commitment process constitutes false imprisonment as a matter of law, but statutory violations do not automatically establish negligence or malpractice; those claims require a trial determination of professional reasonableness.


Fair Oaks Hosp. v. Pocrass, 266 N.J. Super. 140, 628 A.2d 829 (Law Div. 1993)