Defense Win: COA relies on Melanie L. and Virgil D. to reverse involuntary medication order
Outagamie County v. R.M.R., 2025AP561, 11/18/25, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a strong defense win, COA rejects the County’s arguments and holds that the evidence is insufficient to support this medication order as the County failed to name the particular medication it sought to involuntarily administer.
On appeal from an involuntary medication order entered in conjunction with a Chapter 51 involuntary commitment, “Rita” argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the medication order. Specifically, “She notes that the County failed to provide any evidence specifying the particular medication that she is being prescribed.” (¶14). She further critiques the expert’s testimony as to the required explanation of advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives as “perfunctory and insufficient to meet the burden of proving that she is not competent to refuse medication.” (Id.).
Although the County tries to argue that it was not required to specifically name a particular medication or drug, COA holds that “both the applicable statute and Wisconsin case law support Rita’s argument that the County is required to present evidence about the specific medication prescribed for and discussed with Rita, together with its advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives, in order for the circuit court to find that Rita is not competent to refuse medication.”(¶16). (Specifically, COA relies on the plain text of § 51.61(1)(g)4, as well as the language used by SCOW in Melanie L.) Moreover, COA also clarifies that the failure to provide this required information during the doctor’s testimony means that the circuit court “was unable to fully consider the factors set forth in Virgil D. when determining Rita’s understanding, or the lack thereof, regarding the advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives to the medication and treatment prescribed.” (¶18).
COA also rejects the County’s attempt to rely on the doctor’s restatement of the statutory standard during his testimony:
We reject these arguments and agree with Rita that the County cannot meet the statutory and case law prerequisites for the court to find her not competent to refuse medication by relying upon conclusory testimony parroting the statutory language without providing facts about the particular medication she is prescribed, together with evidence regarding the advantages,
disadvantages, and side effects to that specific medication discussed with her.
(¶19). Accordingly, COA reverses the medication order.
Frequent readers of this blog will know that this is an issue that has recurred for years in the 51 arena. Although the dictates of the statute and Melanie L. seemingly could not be clearer, this has not stopped the issue from receiving disparate analysis in a slew of unpublished decisions, culminating with SCOW’s review of the issue in D.E.W.…a case that was then dismissed as improvidently granted, thereby depriving litigants of any finality. Could a County petition be the mechanism that finally brings this case back to SCOW? Stay tuned.