On Point blog, page 3 of 8
COA rejects D.J.W. claim on barest of findings; continues handwringing about influx of Ch. 51 appeals
Winnebago County v. B.R.C., 2023AP1842, 2/14/24, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In quite the head-scratcher, the court of appeals rejects a D.J.W. “specific factual findings” claim while acknowledging that such claims “are multiplying and it is clear that all sides could benefit from clarity on the point.” (Emphasis added). The court then proceeds to offer a step-by-step guide guide for circuit courts to make D.J.W. findings that will be “less likely to be overturned on appeal.” While the circuit court’s findings at issue don’t come close to any such model of clarity, the court holds that they were “sufficient” to allow the court conduct a “meaningful review of the trial court’s exercise of discretion and the evidence presented at the hearing.” Op., ¶21.
COA affirms expired Ch. 51 order for involuntary medication
Douglas County v. K.A.D., 2023AP1072, 2/13/24, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); petition for review granted 6/17/24 case activity
K.A.D. (“Kyle”) challenged the order authorizing his involuntary medication and treatment on two grounds: (1) that the county failed to establish that he was provided the required explanation regarding the recommended medication and treatment and (2) that the county failed to prove he is incompetent to refuse medication and treatment. While the court of appeals assumes without deciding that Kyle’s appeal is moot, the court concludes that Kyle’s case meets an exception to the mootness doctrine, and thereafter rejects Kyle’s argument on the merits.
COA rejects challenges to sufficiency of evidence for 51 extension, involuntary med order
Winnebago County v. T.M.G., 2023AP681, 1/24/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite T.M.G.’s challenges, COA affirms this extension and related medication order applying what it believes to be well-settled precedent.
COA rejects challenges to recommitment and involuntary medication
Ozaukee County D.H.S. v. M.A.G., 2023AP681, 11/29/23, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
M.A.G. challenged the extension of her Chapter 51 commitment and the order finding her incompetent to refuse medication. The court of appeals affirms both orders after concluding that the county presented sufficient evidence of dangerousness under the the third standard and sufficient evidence that she is not competent to refuse medication.
SCOW accepts review of important case which could clarify the “ground rules” for involuntary medication appeals
Winnebago County v. D.E.W., 2023AP215, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 12/11/23; dismissed as improvidently granted 5/14/24, case activity (including briefs)
SCOW accepts a case poised to resolve ongoing conflict in COA with respect to involuntary medication orders in Chapter 51 appeals.
Challenge to involuntary medication order fails
Sawyer County v. P.D.F., 2022AP2007, 11/7/23, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Although P.D.F. successfully persuades COA that the circuit court erroneously concluded he did not understand the advantages, disadvantages and alternatives to medication, the record nonetheless shows that he was incapable of applying an understanding.
Defense win! County failed to prove patient received a reasonable explanation of proposed medication
Marinette County v. A.M.N., 2022AP1395, District III, 8/29/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
Faced with a weak record, COA holds that A.M.N. cleared imposing hurdles to relief and reverses the lower court’s medication order as there was no proof he received a reasonable explanation of the proposed medication. However, despite a hearing rife with inadmissible hearsay, COA upholds the underlying commitment order under a harmless error analysis.
COA affirms another medication order by rejecting “reasonable explanation” arguments; continues to propagate uncertainty in our law
Winnebago County v. P.D.G., 2022AP2005, District II, 8/16/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
In yet another appeal of a medication order attacking the sufficiency of the evidence as to the statute’s requirement that the person receive a “reasonable” or “adequate” explanation of, among other things, the advantages and disadvantages of proposed medication, COA once again affirms in a decision highlighting uncertainty in our law.
COA affirms circuit court in an opinion generating more uncertainty about appellate challenges to Chapter 51 medication orders
Winnebago County v. D.E.W., 2023AP215, District II, 7/26/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; petition for review granted 12/12/23; dismissed as improvidently granted 5/14/24 case activity (briefs not available)
In yet another appeal of a medication order, COA concludes the County sufficiently cleared legal hurdles meant to protect citizens from the involuntary administration of psychotropic drugs.
COA affirms extension of involuntary mental commitment order, order for involuntary medication, entered in absentia based on its understanding of binding precedent
Waukesha County v. M.A.C., 2023AP533, District II, 7/28/23, petition for review granted 12/12/23; reversed 7/5/24; 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
In a Chapter 51 case with troubling due process implications, COA is compelled to affirm by virtue of what it believes to be binding precedent.