seal

Court Case Record JOHN SEMERARO vs. TAUNTON STATE HOSPITAL 2011-P-0172 UID(2748)


JOHN SEMERARO vs. TAUNTON STATE HOSPITAL Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2011-P-0172


 
Case Number2011-P-0172
Case TitleJOHN SEMERARO vs. TAUNTON STATE HOSPITAL
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyBristol
CourtBristol Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date06/17/2009
Close Date04/26/2012

Parties

CounselNameType
William J. Quaglia, EsquireJohn SemeraroPlaintiff/Appellant
Jeffrey J. Isaacson, Esquire Gabriel T. Thornton, EsquireTaunton State HospitalDefendant/Appellee
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
01/31/2011 #1 Motion to waive entry fee, filed by John Semeraro, is allowed.
01/31/2011 #2 Entered.
01/31/2011 #3 Notice of entry sent.
03/10/2011 #4 MOTION to extend brief & appendix due date, filed by John Semeraro.
03/10/2011 #5 RE#3: Extension to 05/31/2011 granted for filing of brief of John Semeraro, Plaintiff/Appellant. *Notice to counsel.
05/31/2011 #6 SERVICE of brief & appendix for Plaintiff/Appellant John Semeraro.
06/03/2011 #7 Amended Certificate of Service received from John Semeraro.
06/22/2011 #8 Notice of appearance of Gabriel T. Thornton for Taunton State Hospital.
06/22/2011 #9 MOTION to extend brief due date of Taunton State Hospital.
06/22/2011 #10 RE#7: Allowed to 07/28/2011. Notice to counsel.
07/28/2011 MOTION to extend brief due date of Taunton State Hospital.
07/28/2011 RE#8: Allowed to 08/05/2011. Notice to counsel.
08/05/2011 SERVICE of brief for Defendant/Appellee Taunton State Hospital.
01/30/2012 Under consideration by Panel. (Kantrowitz, J., Trainor, J., Hanlon, J.).
04/26/2012 ORDER: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The plaintiff appeals a judgment of the Superior Court denying his application for discharge pursuant to G. L. c. 123, § 9(b). Concluding that the plaintiff did not meet his burden to prove that he is no longer mentally ill or dangerous, the judge found "that while effective treatment has ameliorated the effects of [the plaintiff's] underlying mental illness, that the illness remains." See Andrews, petitioner, 449 Mass. 587, 590 (2007). The plaintiff appeals from the judge's order, arguing that he proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he no longer suffered from a mental illness as defined by regulation. See 104 Code Mass. Regs. § 27.05(1) (2006). He contends that the judge erroneously considered the likelihood that he would "go off his medication with the same rapidity that he did after his two most recent commitments." Because the plaintiff, during the pendency of this appeal, was discharged from commitment to a community based setting as he requested in his petition, the case is moot. See Delaney v. Commonwealth, 415 Mass. 490, 492 (1993). We therefore decline to reach the merits of his arguments, which are "heavily dependent on the specific facts of this case, unlikely to arise again in substantially the same form, and should they recur, they would not necessarily evade review before they become moot." Guardianship of Nolan, 441 Mass. 1012, 1013 (2004). Appeal dismissed as moot. (Kantrowitz, Trainor & Hanlon, JJ.) *Notice/Attest.