On Point: e. Dangerousness

Kenosha County v. Vermetrias W., 2014AP861-FT, District 2, 7/16/14 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Vermetrias had been the subject of a Chapter 51 commitment order, which Kenosha County sought to extend. Section 51.20(1)(a)2 provides than an individual is the proper subject for commitment if he or she poses a danger to himself or herself or to others.  Vermetrias presented evidence that there was not a “substantial likelihood” she would become dangerous if her commitment ended.  The trial court ruled against her.  The court of appeals affirmed, but complimented those involved in this matter:

Wood County v. Linda S.D., 2013AP1380, 2/16/14, District 4 (1-judge, ineligible for publication), case activity

Do you know what an infinite loop is?  This decision is a good example of one.

Linda S.D. was subject to a Ch. 51 inpatient commitment order, and the County petitioned to extend it.  The test for extending a commitment order is set forth in § 51.20(1)(am).  The issue,

Waukesha County v. Michael J.S., 2013AP1983-FT, District 2, 1/29/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Michael has been on a court-ordered commitment for thirty-five years, except for a two-year period that ended in 1996, when Michael was committed under § 51.20 after an incident in which he rode his bicycle erratically on a highway and had a confrontation with police. Since 1996, Michael’s commitment order has been extended numerous times,

Outagamie County v. Aaron V., 2013AP808, District 3, 9/10/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The evidence supported an extension of Aaron’s ch. 51 commitment even though Dr. Dave, the county’s expert, did not specifically testify Aaron would “decompensate” or become dangerous if treatment were withdrawn and did not provide reasons for his opinion that Aaron would be a proper subject for commitment if treatment were withdrawn:

¶15      ….

Winnebago County v. Nathan W., 2011AP2099, District 2, 2/1/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Nathan W.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

¶3        Here, Dr. Zerrien’s testimony at the commitment hearing supported the circuit court’s commitment order.  Dr. Zerrien was Nathan’s treating psychiatrist.  Dr. Zerrien testified based on his treatment of Nathan and his review of Nathan’s medical records.  Dr. Zerrien testified that Nathan has bipolar disorder and that this mood disorder grossly impairs him when he is not under treatment,

Shawano County v. Anne R., 2011AP2040, District 3, 12/28/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Anne R.: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Anne R. challenges the extension of her mental health commitment / involuntary medication order, on the ground the County failed to prove she would be a proper subject for commitment if treatment were withdrawn, § 51.20(1)(am). The court rejects the argument,

Brown County v. Kevin Q., 2011AP208, District 3, 6/28/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kevin Q.: Andrew Hinkel, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

¶10      We conclude the evidence sufficiently shows there is a substantial likelihood Kevin would be a proper subject for commitment if treatment were withdrawn.  Kevin acknowledged he has overdosed on medication at least three times.  Slightam testified that without the commitment he was unsure “if [Kevin] would comply with all the medications.”  He also opined Kevin’s medication administration needs to be supervised. 

Brown County v. Quinn M., 2010AP3162, District 3, 4/26/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Quinn M.: Chandra N. Harvey, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to support extension of ch. 51 commitment upheld. 1. Mental illness. Expert testified that she was certain Quinn had a mental illness, though given his history of drug and alcohol use she could not provide a specific diagnosis with certainty.

Rock County v. Henry J. V., 2010AP3044-FT, District 4, 3/17/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Henry J.V.: Steven D. Grunder, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to sustain extension of mental health commitment, as against argument respondent wasn’t shown to be dangerous if treatment were withdrawn.

¶6        As Henry acknowledges, his proceeding was for an extension of his commitment, not for an original commitment,

Waukesha County v. Kathleen R. H., 2010AP2571-FT, District 2, 2/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kathleen R.H.: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

The evidence supported ch. 51 mental health recommitment for a period of 12 months.

¶8        Here, Kathleen misconstrues WIS. STAT. § 51.20(1)(am) as requiring proof, apart from that contained in her treatment record, that she would be a danger to herself or others if treatment were withdrawn.