Department of Health Services Logo

 

Wisconsin Department of Health Services

Client Rights Home

Intro to Client Rights

Client Rights Office

Client Rights Training Opportunities

Client Rights Limitation or Denial

Community Grievance Decision Digest

Confidentiality of Treatment Records

Guardianship

Minors

Informed consent

Centers for the Develop- mentally Disabled

Mental Health Institutes

Secure Treatment Centers

Outpatient treatment

Inpatient treatment

Model Grievance Procedure

Forms, publications and posters

Non-Wisconsin residents who are emergency detained

Community Grievance Decision Digest

PATIENT DEFINED (TO WHOM PATIENT RIGHTS APPLY)

The decision summaries regarding this law may be found in the document:
Community Grievance Decision Digest: Decisions. (PDF, 512KB)

THE LAW:

“Patient Rights... In this section, ‘patient’ means any individual who is receiving services for mental illness, developmental disabilities, alcoholism, or drug dependency, including any individual who is admitted to a treatment facility in accordance with this chapter or ch. 48 or 55 or who is detained, committed or placed under this chapter or ch. 48, 55, 971, 975 or 980, or... who is receiving care or treatment for those conditions through the department or a county department under s. 51.42 or 52.437 or in a private treatment facility. ‘Patient’ does not include persons committed under ch. 975 who are transferred to or residing in any state prison listed under s. 302.01.  In private hospitals and public general hospitals, ‘patient’ includes any individual who is admitted for the primary purpose of treatment of mental illness, developmental disabilities, alcoholism, or drug abuse but does not include an individual who receives treatment on an outpatient basis at those hospitals, unless the individual is otherwise covered under this subsection...”

ss. 51.61(1), Wis. Stats.

DECISIONS

  1. A patient’s ex-husband attempted to file a grievance on his ex-wife’s behalf about the fees charged for her mental health services.  He had been ordered by the divorce court to pay that bill.  He lacked standing to bring the complaint or appeal it through the grievance process without his ex-wife’s consent. Patient rights attached to her, not her ex-husband, since she was the one receiving the treatment. (Level III decision in Case No. 00-SGE-06 on 4/14/00.)

  2. The rights and grievance procedure in DHS 94 do not apply to the Intoxicated Driver Program (IDP) or the driver’s safety program plans. [See DSL Memo Series 2000-04 on 4/25/00.] (Level IV decision in Case No. 99-SGE-01 on 5/16/00.)

  3. Even though the patient rights and grievance procedure in DHS 94 do not apply to the Intoxicated Driver Program (IDP) or the driver’s safety program plans, where an individual is also in a methadone treatment program, she has patient rights and access to the grievance process regarding that treatment.   (Level IV decision in Case No. 99-SGE-01 on 5/16/00.)

  4. A patient being emergency detained complained about being shackled by the sheriff officers during transport.  This is their standard practice.  The grievance process has no jurisdiction over the actions of law enforcement agencies. (Level III decision in Case No. 00-SGE-04 on 4/9/01.)

  5. Financial assistance for housing is not an issue covered by client rights and such decisions cannot be challenged in the grievance process in DHS 94. (Level III decision in Case No. 01-SGE-02 on 6/6/01.)

  6. Her daughter’s therapist told her mother, in a rather public place, by that she (the mother) was the one who needed treatment.  This remark was insensitive, but the mother was not a patient at the time and the right to dignity and respect did not apply to her. (Level III decision in Case No. 01-SGE-02 on 12/10/01.)

  7. A complainant raised issues regarding the “couples therapy” he and his wife received.  At Level II of the grievance process, it was concluded that the complainant was not a client, in the context of therapy that was provided, and thus did not have access to the grievance process.  At Level III, it was concluded that the complainant was a patient by definition since he was referred to as such numerous times in the treatment records, had his own diagnosis, and had a joint “treatment plan” with his wife. Thus, he had access to the grievance process like any other “patient”.  (Level III decision in Case No. 00-SGE-11 on 4/30/02, dismissed at Level IV for lack of standing to appeal because the ruling was in his favor at Level III.)

  8. A complainant claimed he was not allowed to participate in the planning of his treatment with regard to joint marriage counseling. It was found that these were individual sessions for his wife in which he was invited to be present.  No rights violation was found since it was not his treatment that was involved.  It was conclude that joint marriage counseling, per se, is not mental health treatment to which “patient rights” apply. There was no violation of his rights, even if it was joint marriage counseling. (Level IV decision in Case No. 02-SGE-07 on 3/10/04.)

  9. The purpose of an independent outpatient evaluation is to determine whether or not the individual is experiencing a mental illness and is in need of treatment. It is the provision of treatment that makes the individual a “patient”. The full panoply of patient rights did not attach to such an evaluation. However, the complainant still had rights in regard to access to the records generated by the evaluation. (Level IV decision in Case No. 06-SGE-09 on 9/27/06)

Last Updated: June 18, 2009