Stowers v. Wolodzko 386 Mich. 119, 191 N.W.

2d 355 (1971) Case analysis By: Kelsey Bradford

I.

Procedure a. Plaintiff: Stowers Defendant: Wolodzko b. Stowers brought action c. The case originated in a trial court in Michigan d. The plaintiff (Stowers) won at the trial court level for assault and battery and false imprisonment. e. The defendant (Wolodzko) raised 5 issues to appeal; there was evidence of false imprisonment

II.

Facts a. Relevant facts Plaintiff is a housewife living in Livonia, Michigan with husband and kids There were marital issues between plaintiff and husband She intended to file for divorce December 6, defendant appeared at plaintiffs home He introduced himself as Dr. Wolodzko Dr. Wolodzko had never met plaintiff or her husband Dr. Wolodzko was called to the home by the husband to examine the plaintiff According to plaintiff, the defendant stated he was there to ask about her husbands back

She said to ask her husband, and had no further contact with him or her husband

She testified that Dr. Wolodzko never said he was a psychiatrist Dr. Wolodzko testified that he told plaintiff he was there to examine her

He then stated that up to that point he could not specifically recollect telling her he was there to examine her

He stated he was sure that the fact he was a psychiatrist would have come out, but couldnt remember saying it or not

Plaintiff subsequently spoke to Dr. Wolodzko at the suggestion of a Livonia policewoman following a domestic quarrel with her husband

He informed her at that time that he was a psychiatrist December 30, 1963 Wolodzko and Dr. Anthony Smyk at the request of the plaintiffs husband and without the authorization, knowledge, or consent of plaintiff, signed a sworn statement certifying they examined plaintiff and found her mentally ill

Certificate was filed with the Wayne County Probate court on January 3, 1964 and on the same day an order was entered by the probate court for temporary hospitalization of the plaintiff until a sanity hearing could be held

Judge had plaintiff committed to Ardmore Acres and she was transported there January 4, 1964

Once there, the defendant requested permission to treat plaintiff several times and she refused

Plaintiff was placed in the security room for six days which just had a bed in it and the windows were covered in wire mesh

Plaintiff refused to eat 5 of those 6 days and at all times refused medications

Defendant telephoned orders to the hospital and prescribed certain medication and visited her often during her stay

Plaintiff was refused permission to receive or place phone calls or letters after arriving to the hospital, and Dr. Wolodzko would not allow her to contact her brother in Texas

After nine days she was allowed to call her family and no one else Plaintiff asked one of her children to contact relatives in Texas and defendant took her aside and told her not to try that again or she will never see her children again

Plaintiff undisputedly asked repeatedly to call an attorney and Wolodzko refused to let her

Plaintiff refused medicine once and defendant ordered three nurses and an attendant to hold her down and inject it in her

Hospital personnel testified that the medication and deprivation of communication orders were pursuant to defendants instructions

Plaintiff by chance found an unlocked phone and called relatives in Texas

She was released by court order on January 27, 1964 Plaintiff filed suit alleging false imprisonment, assault and battery, and malpractice against Dr. Wolodzko, Anthony Smyk, and Ardmore Acres

Ardmore Acres and Smyk were dismissed prior to trial Defendant Wolodzko moved for a directed verdict and court granted the motion as to the count of malpractice, but allowed the count of assault and battery and imprisonment to go to jury

At the conclusion of trial the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $40,000

Defendant raised 5 issues on appeal; second issue involved whether or not the jury found evidence of false imprisonment

The liability stemmed from plaintiff being taken to Ardmore Acres and defendant held her incommunicado and prevented her from attempting to obtain her release, pursuant to law.

Defendant contends it was proper to restrict plaintiff and defendant witness Dr. Sidney Bolter testified that these orders are customary in this type of case

Testimony of Dr. Bolter is not conclusive at this point Jury holds that defendant action constitute false imprisonment The court of Appeals is affirmed

III.

Issues a. Assault and Battery; Malpractice; False Imprisonment

b. I agree with the way the court framed the issues; they each addressed issues faced by the plaintiff as well as the actions of the doctor

IV.

Holding a. Defendant was found guilty of false imprisonment and assault and battery; damages were awarded. Defendant was found not guilty of malpractice. b. The plaintiff was virtually held prisoner with no chance of redress because she was ordered to no outside communication (false imprisonment). Plaintiff was allegedly held against will, possibly given medications, and possibly had to be physically taken to Ardmore Acre. c. I agree because the plaintiff clearly did not want to be at the facility, and the doctor did not have sufficient evidence or reason to keep her there.

V.

Implications a. Physicians and administrators need to have facts and proof that a patient needs to be held at a mental facility against their own will. b. A person temporarily committed to an institution pursuant to statue has every right to contact an attorney or relatives c. Administrators should pay attention to what doctor are ordering for their patients and whether or not they are fair and just orders. d. If the case had been decided differently the plaintiff would probably not have received any sort of awards for her time spent in the mental facility.