Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Uudenmaan LO 21.2.1995 272/2 AI generated

Mental health compulsory observation valid if prior voluntary care failed and referral justified necessity.

Case Number Uudenmaan LO 21.2.1995 272/2
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court allowed the patient's placement in compulsory observation, ruling that the initial psychiatric referral was insufficiently detailed but substantively justified. Although the referral lacked specific assessments of alternative care suitability, the medical record clearly indicated that other mental health services were deemed inadequate. The court held that the statutory requirement for a referral was met because the underlying medical necessity for involuntary care was established despite the form's omissions.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Mielenterveyslain 8 § 1 mom; 9 §; 13 §: A patient may be placed in compulsory observation under section 13 if a physician's referral exists demonstrating that voluntary care was insufficient and other services are inadequate, even if the referral form lacks specific detail on alternative care assessments.

Keywords

AI generated
compulsory observation mental health law voluntary care failure physician referral involuntary treatment administrative procedure medical necessity

Cited Legislation

AI generated
MielenterveysL 8 § 1 mom
MielenterveysL 8 § 1 mom
MielenterveysL 9 §
MielenterveysL 13 §
AI generated
admin_1995_uusimaa-county__1617
Administrative court quashes involuntary psychiatric hospitalization order due to insufficient medical assessment in referral letter.
admin_2004_helsinki__880
Administrative court dismissed appeal as inadmissible due to lack of legal interest in the contested decision.
admin_2011_kuopio__351
Administrative court dismisses mental health detention order due to unauthorized transfer by non-employee doctor.
admin_1995_northern-karelia-county__127
Administrative court dismissed involuntary psychiatric hospitalization continuation due to procedural error in prior order.
admin_1998_uusimaa-county__53
Administrative court dismissed continuation of involuntary psychiatric care due to procedural delay beyond statutory limits.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

A oli toimitettu psykiatriseen sairaalahoitoon terveyskeskuslääkärin

kirjoittamalla tarkkailulähetteellä. Sairaalassa

tarkkailulähetteen katsottiin olevan puutteellinen ja A

asetettiin mielenterveyslain 13 §:n nojalla tarkkailuun.

Sairaalan vastuunalainen ylilääkäri määräsi A:n hoitoon hänen

tahdostaan riippumatta. Lääninoikeus katsoi, että A:n

asettaminen tarkkailuun oli edellyttänyt tarkkailulähetettä,

koska asiakirjoista ei ilmennyt, että A olisi ennen

tarkkailuun ottamista ollut vapaaehtoisessa hoidossa. Tarkkailulähetteestä

oli jäänyt täyttämättä kohta muiden mielenterveyspalvelujen

kuin tahdosta riippumattoman hoidon

soveltuvuudesta tai riittävyydestä. Koska lähetteen perusteluosasta

kuitenkin ilmeni, että muut mielenterveyspalvelut

oli katsottu riittämättömiksi, A oli voitu ottaa sen

nojalla tarkkailtavaksi.

MielenterveysL 8 § 1 mom

MielenterveysL 9 §

MielenterveysL 13 §