Opinion · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Bane v. Superintendent of Boston State Hospital

350 Mass. 637

Type
Opinion
Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts
Date
1966-04-28
Topic
estate-planning

Wilkins, C.J. The prayer in this petition for a writ of mandamus is that the respondent superintendent of the Boston State Hospital be commanded to permit the petitioner to examine, and to obtain copies of, the records of the petitioner’s involuntary “admission and detention” at that hospital in 1963. The petitioner appealed from a denial of the petition. The Boston State Hospital is under the control of the Department of Mental Health. G.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Bane v. Superintendent of Boston State Hospital. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
5 opinions
Wilkins, C.J.

The prayer in this petition for a writ of mandamus is that the respondent superintendent of the Boston State Hospital be commanded to permit the petitioner to examine, and to obtain copies of, the records of the petitioner’s involuntary “admission and detention” at that hospital in 1963. The petitioner appealed from a denial of the petition.

The Boston State Hospital is under the control of the Department of Mental Health. G. L. c. 19, § 5. Its records are subject to G. L. c. Ill, § 70. The petitioner relies upon § 70, as amended by St. 1945, c. 291. That statute in its present form, however, is as amended through St. 1964, c. 653, which contains an exception expressly excluding from inspection by a patient or his attorney the records of “a *638 hospital or clinic under the control of the department of mental health.”

The petitioner contends that St. 1964, c. 653, was enacted in violation of Senate Bule 50, 1 but the violation is not conceded. In any event, the statute cannot be thus impugned in a court of law. Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 672. Sears v. Treasurer & Recr. Gen. 327 Mass. 310, 321. Weeks v. Smith, 81 Maine, 538, 547. 81 C. J. S., States, § 39.

There has been no violation of art. 5 of the Declaration of Bights of the Constitution of the Commonwealth.

Order denying petition affirmed.

1

“No motion or proposition of a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under the color of an amendment.”