Statement of Purpose / Chin Pak v. Georgia Department of Behavioral Health

"Did you hear what the government is doing?" comes the question in office hallways, barrooms, ballparks, classrooms, dinner tables, and everywhere else people are talking.  But the question itself carries so much breadth.  There is no "the" government.  Government is local, state, and federal.  Government is executive, legislative and judicial.  So when whatever news provider we happen to choose for our information tells us of "what the government is doing," that news provider has already done some filtering by which branch of what level of government did something "newsworthy" that day.

So if something happens that impacts you, and the news doesn't report it, you don't know about it, unless you are looking for it.  Much of that filtering goes on with respect to court related news.  My perception is that court related news falls into the following categories:  (a) sensationalized trials; (b) United States Supreme Court decisions on issues that can become politicized; and (c) the appointment of judges.  Yet, none of these truly represents a focus on government action that can impact a person on a day to day basis.

What I am going to try to do here, if I can keep up the energy, is to report, perhaps daily on significant decisions made by the Court of Appeals of Georgia and the Supreme Court of Georgia.  These decisions come down throughout the year, and are truly the kind of nuts and bolts decisions that do show up in our daily lives.  Just yesterday (August 27, 2012), the Court of Appeals issued three decisions:

1. In re J.X.B., which concerned a 16 year old who admitted that he brought a baseball bat to school in connection with an assault.  
2. Jinks v. Eastman Enterprises, how long a case can remain inactive before it gets dismissed.
3. Chin Pak v. Georgia Department of Behavioral Health & Developmental Disabilities,  concerning when a party can, and cannot, sue the government. 

Of these three cases, the first can be viewed as a technical case involving the procedures controlling when the government can deprive a minor child of liberty, the second can be viewed as a very technical case involving how court orders are entered, but the third falls into the category of "did you hear what the government is doing?" But I'll venture a guess that the case doesn't garner a word of press coverage (as compared to, say, the Andrea Sneiderman case, about an already solved local murder in which one person has already been convicted).  The headline, if one were to sensationalize, about the Chin Pak case might be "Government Decides It Cannot Be Held Responsible When Government Hospital Releases Psychiatric Patient Against Family's Wishes And Patient Murders Mother After Release."  That's a grabber, isn't it?

So what happened?  As the court itself explained:  "Na Yong Pak had a history of mental illness and was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and hallucinations after being involuntarily committed to Georgia Regional Hospital (“GRH”), a facility run by the DBHDD, in December 2008. Na Yong Pak's medical records at GRH indicate that while she was a patient she did not participate in her scheduled therapy, refused to take her medications, did not attend psychiatric sessions with hospital doctors, and was considered a danger to others. Despite objections from her family, and although she continued to refuse medication or seek treatment, Na Yong Pak was discharged from GRH on January 29, 2009. On February 10, twelve days after being discharged, Na Yong Pak doused her mother in gasoline and set her on fire."  

The Pak family filed suit, and the suit was dismissed under a long-standing principal called "sovereign immunity," which has its roots in the English Law, under the theory that "the King can do no wrong."  Simply put, one is not allowed to sue the government for governing.  And there's good sense to that.  But, what if in the course of "governing," a government employee is driving a car and runs over a mailbox?  There are exceptions to sovereign immunity for such things.  The issue in Pak was whether a particular exception did, or did not, apply.  The Court of Appeals ruled that a lawsuit would not be permitted in this circumstance.  To be clear, the Court of Appeals based its decision on a previous interpretation of an already existing statue -- it did not decide this one on a whim (nor, for that matter, does it ever decide anything on a whim).  But in trying to know what "the government is doing," it's helpful, or so I think, to pick out decisions like Chin Pak and be aware of them.

So, check back here if you are curious about what the Judicial Branch of the State of Georgia is doing.  Certainly I'll still be filtering (I pick the cases to discuss).  I'm not giving legal advice; I'm not writing this as an attorney.  I'm writing this to inform, and, sometimes, to comment.  I do hope you enjoy it.