The Commitment of Tenita Janelle Dorsey

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 16-999

THE COMMITMENT OF TENITA JANELLE DORSEY

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF NATCHITOCHES, NO. 88,879A
HONORABLE W. PEYTON CUNNINGHAM, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

D. KENT SAVOIE
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Phyllis M. Keaty, and D. Kent Savoie,
Judges.

SET ASIDE AND REMANDED.

Patricia A. Gilley
Gilley & Gilley
P. O. Box 52011
Shreveport, LA 71135
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Tenita Janelle Dorsey

Al Sale
Laura Picard
Mental Health Advocacy Service
242 W. Shamrock St.
Pineville, LA 71360
(318) 484-6348
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Tenita Janelle Dorsey

Ed Hall
850 Rutherford St.
Shreveport, LA 71104
PRO-SE APPELLEE

Martine Lattier
850 Rutherford St.
Shreveport, LA 71104
PRO-SE APPELLEE

SAVOIE, Judge.

Ms. Dorsey appeals the trial court’s Order of Judicial Commitment dated

October 27, 2016. For the reasons that follow, we set aside the trial court’s order

and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In July 2016, Tenita Dorsey hired Ed Hall as a private investigator and paid

him $3,000 for his services. According to Mr. Hall, Ms. Dorsey had hired him “to

gather evidence against the [Natchitoches] City Fathers so that she could file suit

against them for doing her wrong . . . by following her and harassing her.” Mr.

Hall indicated that after meeting with Ms. Dorsey several times, it was his opinion

that she was “paranoid,” “illusional [sic],” and “wasn’t altogether there[.]” Further

Mr. Hall’s assistant, Martine Lattier, indicated that she noticed a shotgun in Ms.

Dorsey’s home, although it was unclear whether the gun was loaded or not, and

that Ms. Dorsey had stated to her that she wished her friend, Camille Moran, were

dead.

On October 20, 2016, Mr. Hall and Ms. Lattier filed a pro-se petition

seeking the judicial commitment of Ms. Dorsey. The petition notes that at the time

it was filed, Ms. Dorsey was residing at Promise Hospital in Shreveport; however,

the record lacks any information concerning the circumstances leading to her

residing there.

The trial judge signed an order on October 21, 2016, ordering that Ms.

Dorsey:

be examined by a physician from Promise Specialty Hospital, or by
another physician. The physician shall examine [Ms. Dorsey] prior to
the date fixed for hearing and shall file a written report with this Court
on forms provided for that purpose by the Office of Mental Health of
the Department of Health and Human Resources.

The trial judge further appointed Mental Health Advocacy Services to

represent Ms. Dorsey, ordered that Ms. Dorsey continue to be detained by Promise,

and set the matter for hearing on October 27, 2016.

On October 27, 2016, Ms. Dorsey, through counsel, filed a motion seeking

to strike, or prevent from being submitted, any medical evidence that was

privileged under La.Code Evid. art. 510. Ms. Dorsey’s counsel also argued that

Ms. Dorsey was not provided with any court-appointed physicians’ written reports

at least three days prior to the hearing as required by La.R.S. 28:54, and therefore it

was improper for the court to consider any written reports it had received. The

trial court denied Ms. Dorsey’s motion.

Petitioners were not represented by counsel during the proceeding. During

the hearing on October 27, 2016, the trial court, on its own, noted it was accepting

into evidence two separate written reports that it had received from Dr. Lee

Stevens and Dr. Janice Hollier. In addition, the trial court heard testimony from

Mr. Hall, Ms. Lattier, and Ms. Moran. It further accepted into evidence various

photographs and text messages that were submitted by Mr. Hall.

Ultimately, the trial court found petitioners had satisfied their burden of

proof, relying primarily on the written reports of Dr. Lee and Dr. Hollier, and it

entered an order of commitment. On November 2, 2016, Ms. Dorsey filed a

motion for new trial, which the trial court denied.

Ms. Dorsey now appeals, asserting the following as assignments of error:

(1) The trial court erred in depriving [Ms. Dorsey] of her right to
cross examine the physicians in this matter.

(2) The trial court erred by giving petitioner access to the physician
written reports.

(3) The trial court erred in denying the Motion to Strike.

2

(4) The trial court erred when it prevented [Ms. Dorsey] from
asserting her right to assert her health care patient provider
privilege afforded to her pursuant to [La.Code. Evid. art.]
510.5.

(5) Is there clear and convincing evidence that is sufficient to
establish that [Ms. Dorsey] is dangerous to [herself or others] or
gravely disabled as called for in Title 28 of the Mental Health
Laws?

(6) Is a judicial commitment proceeding proper venue for this
dispute?

(7) Was there sufficient consideration of a means for less restrictive
treatment?

Appellees Mr. Hall and Ms. Lattier have not submitted an appellee brief to

this court.

ANALYSIS

We first consider Ms. Dorsey’s argument that she was improperly denied the

opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Stevens and Dr. Hollier. “The district court is

given vast discretion in its decisions on evidentiary rulings and its decision to

admit or exclude evidence will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly shown

that it has abused that discretion.” Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc. v. City of Lafayette,

05-1478, p. 23 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/5/06), 919 So.2d 844, 860.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 28:54 (emphasis added), which governs judicial

commitment proceedings, states in part

(D)(1) As soon as practical after the filing of the petition, the
court shall review the petition and supporting documents, and
determine whether there exists probable cause to believe that the
respondent is suffering from mental illness which contributes to his
being or causes him to be a danger to himself or others or gravely
disabled, or is suffering from substance abuse which contributes to his
being or causes him to be a danger to himself or others or gravely
disabled. If the court determines that probable cause exists, the court
shall appoint a physician, preferably a psychiatrist, to examine the
respondent and make a written report to the court and the

3

respondent’s attorney on the form provided by the office of
behavioral health of the Louisiana Department of Health. The court-
appointed physician may be the respondent’s treating physician. The
written report shall be made available to counsel for the
respondent at least three days before the hearing.

Similarly, La.R.S. 28:55(D) (emphasis added) states in part: “If the

respondent or his attorney notifies the court not less than three days before the

hearing that he wishes to cross examine the examining physicians, the court shall

order such physicians to appear in person or by deposition.”

In the instant matter, neither Dr. Stevens nor Dr. Hollier appeared in court or

were cross-examined on the day of the hearing. There is no indication that their

written reports relied upon by the trial court were provided to Ms. Dorsey or her

counsel at any time prior to the hearing on October 27, 2017, much less in

accordance with the statutory requirement that Ms. Dorsey be provided with the

written report at least three days before the hearing. In fact, the physicians’ reports

pertain to examinations conducted on October 25, 2017, which was only two days

prior to the hearing.

Moreover, while the trial court’s October 21, 2016 order required Ms.

Dorsey to submit to an examination by one physician at Promise Specialty

Hospital, or by some other physician, the order did not provide the name of the

physician who was to examine Ms. Dorsey. Therefore, Ms. Dorsey had no way of

knowing who was going to be conducting an examination in accordance with the

court’s order prior to the hearing, so that she could request the opportunity to

cross-examine that physician. Further, it is unclear whether either of the two

physicians who submitted reports to the trial court had examined Ms. Dorsey

pursuant to the October 21, 2016 order.

4

Because the procedural safeguards established by La. R.S. 28:54 were not

followed, Ms. Dorsey was effectively deprived of her right to cross-examine the

physicians who submitted reports to the trial court.

It is fundamental in our system of justice that the necessity of testing
evidence by cross-examination is a vital feature of the law. Our
system believes that no safeguard for measuring the value of
testimony is comparable to that furnished by cross-examination. The
cross-examination of a witness at a civil trial is an essential part of our
adversarial system of justice. The trial court does have the right to
control the nature, extent and character of cross-examination but a
litigant may not be denied the procedural right to cross-examine
witnesses in the interest of judicial economy or other well-intentioned
motives.

Smith v. Scott, 577 So.2d 809, 811 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1991).

Without cross-examination, the trial court could not properly weigh Dr.

Stevens’ or Dr. Hollier’s reports or determine their value. See Id. Therefore, the

trial court’s judgment should be set aside. Under the authority of La.Code Civ.P.

art. 2164, we remand the matter for further proceedings to allow the cross-

examinations of Dr. Stevens and Dr. Hollier and the presentation of evidence

relating to those cross-examinations. Having reached this conclusion, we pretermit

the other issues raised on appeal.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the trial court’s Order of Judicial Commitment

is hereby set aside, and the matter is hereby remanded to the trial court to allow the

cross-examinations of Dr. Stevens and Dr. Hollier and the presentation of evidence

relating to those cross-examinations. Costs of this appeal are assessed to

Appellees, Ed Hall and Martine Lattier.

SET ASIDE AND REMANDED.

5