On Point: 4. Involuntary meds

Milwaukee County v. D.H., 2022AP1402, 3/7/23, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

To obtain an involuntary medication order, a county must satisfy the multi-step test for incompetency to make medication decisions in §51.61(1)(g)4. The first step requires the county to prove that the person received a “reasonable explanation” of the advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives to medication. The examiner can’t just testify that she complied with the statute. She must tell the court what she told the person about the medication. In “Dan’s” case, the court of appeals reversed the involuntary medication order because the county failed this step.

Outagamie County v. L.X.D.-O., 2023 WI App 17; case activity

Unfortunately, the court of appeals just turned Chapter 51 upside down in a published opinion. It holds that counties must move examiners’ reports into evidence at recommitment hearings, but not at initial commitment hearings. This appeal concerns the sufficiency of the evidence to support an involuntary medication order entered following an initial commitment. The court of appeals held that the doctor’s testimony was insufficient to support the order, but the doctor’s report, which was not moved into evidence, filled the gaps. It thus affirmed the med order.

Outagamie County v. C.J.A., 2022AP230, 2/17/23, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

“Catherine” appeals the extension of her ch. 51 commitment. The recommitment hearing was originally set for a few days before her previous extension would expire. But three days before that scheduled hearing, Catherine requested an independent examination. She, the court, and the county agreed to a “stipulation for temporary extension to commitment” for 60 days. The final hearing was held near the end of this 60 days, 57 days after her commitment had been set to expire before the stipulation.

Winnebago County v. P.D.G., 2022AP606-FT, 9/7/22, District 2, (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

Winnebago County dumped 550 pages of discovery on counsel 2 hours and 15 minutes before “Paul’s” recommitment hearing, so he requested a adjournment. “Denied!” said the circuit court because §51.20(10)(e) allows only 1 adjournment, which had already been used. If the SPD had appointed counsel sooner, this wouldn’t have happened. On appeal, Paul argued that the court misread the statute, and he can’t control the appointment process. He also argued that the county failed to prove that the examiner gave him a “reasonable explanation” of the “particular medication” prescribed for him per §51.61(1)(g)(4) and Outagamie County v. Melanie L. The court of appeals affirmed.

Taylor County Human Services v. L.E., 2021AP1292, 2/15/22, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

A circuit court extended “Luca’s” commitment, directed that he be placed in a locked ward, and ordered involuntary medication. On appeal, Luca challenges his placement in a locked ward and the involuntary medication order. At a minimum, the court of appeals analysis of Luca’s right to refuse involuntary medication merits review by SCOW.

Outagamie County v. D.D.G., 2021AP511, District 3, 1/20/22, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Dana” has been under commitment since 2017. It is undisputed that she has taken her medication and has done nothing dangerous in the interim.  Yet the court of appeals affirmed her 2021 recommitment because she questions her diagnosis and her need for medication and has concerns about its health effects. The court said that if she were released, she would decline medication and decompensate. Her case highlights a tension between §51.20(1)(am) and a person’s 14th Amendment right to refuse medication. It also shows that courts continue to misapply §51.61(1)(g)4., the involuntary medication statute.

Rock County v. P.P., 2021AP678, District 4, 12/16/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

P.P. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence elicited in support of the involuntary medication order issued in April 2020, along with the original commitment order. Both orders were set to expire in October 2020, so in September 2020 the County petitioned to extend them for 12 months. P.P. stipulated to the extension. (¶¶2-4). Because of the September 2020 extension of the medication order, P.P.’s appeal of the original order is moot.

Milwaukee County v. R.T.H., 2019AP1763, 10/12/21, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This decision raises an important question of first impression: Are appeals from expired involuntary medication orders ever moot? The court of appeals holds that once the involuntary med order expires, it doesn’t have to address the merits of a claim that there was insufficient evidence to support the order. We think the court of appeals is wrong. Let’s hope that “Robert” files a petition for review.

Waukesha County v. E.A.B., Jr., 2021AP986-FT, District 2, 9/8/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

E.A.B. was first committed in 2008. At what would appear to be the 12th extension hearing, in 2020, it was extended again. E.A.B.’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for that extension, and for the associated medication order, are rejected by the court of appeals.

Rock County v. J.J.K., 2020AP1085, 4/29/21, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication), case activity

This is an appeal from the initial commitment and involuntary medication order entered against J.J.K. The court of appeals affirmed both contrary to published precedent on the rule against hearsay, the plain error doctrine, and procedural and substantive due process.