REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NUMBER 12: Admit that [Patient] Lynn tried to escape from UAMS.

UAMS’ ANSWER: Denied. Patient Lynn attempted to elope which is the act of a patient leaving a healthcare facility without authorization or notification when there are safety concerns for the patient based on the patient’s medical condition, which in this case, included cognitive impairment resulting from a traumatic brain injury.

In their answer, UAMS did not simply deny the request. Instead, they reframed it by substituting the word escape with the term elope, and then inserted a definition—uncited and not drawn from any legal authority. This language appears designed to justify their actions rather than respond in good faith to the request.

Medical staff at UAMS referenced at least 20 separate instances of Lynn’s attempts to leave the facility using variations of the term elope. It is worth noting that “elopement” in this context is a term adopted by the medical industry. It is not a legal classification of behavior, nor does it override a person’s constitutional rights.

UAMS’s response implies that Mr. Lynn required authorization to leave the hospital. This implication is both misleading and dangerous. There is no law requiring a mentally competent adult to obtain permission to leave a hospital. The term Against Medical Advice (AMA) was coined by the healthcare industry to describe patients who decline care—not to denote unlawful behavior. Leaving a hospital AMA is not unauthorized. UAMS knows this. Its own published Patient Rights and Responsibilities—which must comply with the Fourteenth Amendment—acknowledge the patient’s right to refuse treatment and leave the facility.

UAMS justified the use of physical and chemical restraints by citing cognitive impairment. What Mr. Lynn actually experienced was mild aphasia—resulting from swelling in the language center of his brain. Aphasia is a recognized disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It affects communication, not judgment, and does not make a person a danger to themselves or others. There was no injury to Mr. Lynn’s frontal cortex, the part of the brain that governs decision-making.

Despite this, UAMS forcibly detained him using both physical restraints and sedating medications. They did so without proper notification to his family or household members. His mother—listed in his phone as “Mom and Grandma”—was not contacted, even though she and others arrived at the hospital shortly after learning of his injury. UAMS refused to recognize her as a surrogate decision-maker. It was not until day 14 that UAMS admitted, in writing, that they had no reason to consider her incapacitated.

For two weeks, UAMS misrepresented the cause of Mr. Lynn’s condition. Now, rather than acknowledge their errors, they appear to be doubling down. The agitation they blame on a brain injury was more plausibly caused by a combination of factors: overmedication, being physically tackled, restrained naked to a hospital bed, trauma to his genitals, and—based on descriptions in the medical record and first hand observation by this writer—what could be legally characterized as sexual assault.

After Mr. Lynn was discharged Against Medical Advice, the hospital was asked to prescribe the medications they had used to stabilize him. Of the many powerful drugs administered to him without his consent, only two—propranolol and sodium tablets—were prescribed for use at home.

The following medications were administered involuntarily while Mr. Lynn was held at UAMS, and the doctors knew he would not need these if Lynn was allowed to return home:

• Ciprofloxacin-Dexamethasone
• Dexmedetomidine
• Diazepam
• Divalproex
• Enoxaparin
• Fentanyl
• Guanfacine
• Haloperidol Lactate
• Levetiracetam
• Magnesium Sulfate
• Olanzapine
• Ondansetron
• Phenobarbital
• Polyethylene Glycol
• Propranolol
• Quetiapine
• Senna
• Trazodone

These drugs span multiple classes: sedatives, antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, and opioids. Administering them to a restrained patient who is attempting to assert their right to leave—without informed consent and with no legal authorization for involuntary hold—raises serious questions about abuse, medical ethics, and civil liberties.