An individual civilly committed to a psychiatric hospital is entitled to a hearing when the hospital seeks to move that individual from that nonsecure facility to a secure facility for reasons that are essentially legal in nature. In this case the "security concern that the patient might escape, seek out her former lover, and hurt persons who interfered with the satisfaction of this delusional goal" was deemed legal in nature. As a result, a New York appellate court remanded the case to the trial court to conduct a pre-deprivation hearing on the patient's commitment.

Delusional, a woman engaged in a pattern of harassment against her ex-lover, believing that the two would be reunited. As a result she was criminally convicted and committed to a nonsecure psychiatric hospital. During her commitment, however, she became combative, believing that hospital personnel were trying to interfere with a reunion between her and her ex-lover. Due to her combativeness, and believing that she would likely try to escape the nonsecure hospital, the hospital requested her transfer to a secure psychiatric facility, and a hearing was held on the matter. The hospital's request was subsequently granted, and the patient was transferred. The patient challenged her detention and transfer to the secure hospital.

The appellate court determined that since the reasons for the transfer were of a legal nature—security concerns—as opposed to a medical diagnosis, a hearing would be necessary prior to the deprivation of the patient's liberty interests. Thus, the court determined that the government was obligated to present clear and convincing evidence establishing that the patient posed a security risk so as to justify the transfer.