ANTONIO PEREIRA VS. OASIS FOODS (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION), A-0405-15T2

Background

Susan was admitted to psychiatric units after self-harm (cutting) and placed on temporary involuntary commitment; psychiatrists found she was mentally ill and a danger to herself and unwilling to be voluntarily admitted.
She was transferred to Trenton Psychiatric Hospital (TPH) and subject to multiple municipal court reviews continuing involuntary commitment.
At the March 3, 2016 review hearing, Susan—without prior notice to the court or State—asked to convert her involuntary status to voluntary, acknowledging need for dialectical behavior therapy, one-to-one supervision, and that she would comply with prescribed medications.
The covering psychiatrist testified Susan remained mood-unstable, had poor impulse control, had expressed recent suicidal ideation and access to staples, and thus was a danger to herself; he recommended continued involuntary commitment.
The municipal court denied Susan’s conversion request, crediting the doctor’s opinion that she lacked capacity to give informed consent to treatment; the Appellate Division reviewed the denial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Susan knowingly and voluntarily requested conversion from involuntary commitment to voluntary status	Susan argued her orientation, insight into need for therapy, medication compliance, and understanding of consequences show capacity to make a knowing, voluntary request	State argued (on appeal) it needed advance notice to prepare and relied on psychiatrist’s testimony that she lacked capacity and remained dangerous	Court held Susan knowingly and voluntarily requested conversion; record did not support clear-and-convincing proof she was unwilling to be voluntarily admitted; reversed continuation of involuntary commitment
Whether evidence supported continued involuntary commitment by clear and convincing evidence	Susan: testimony and behavior demonstrated capacity and willingness to accept voluntary care	State: psychiatrist testimony that she remained dangerous and required one-to-one supervision justified continued commitment	Court held evidence did not show she was unwilling to accept voluntary care; psychiatrist’s testimony insufficient to meet statutory standard
Whether appellate court should consider State’s claim about lack of notice when not raised below	Susan: (implicit) trial record adequate; State did not object below	State: claimed need for advance notice to prepare a fair hearing	Court declined to consider argument because State did not raise it at the hearing; issue waived on appeal
Standard of review for continued involuntary commitment	N/A (procedural)	N/A	Court applied abuse-of-discretion standard and required clear-and-convincing evidence; reversed for lack of such evidence

Key Cases Cited

In re D.C., 146 N.J. 31 (review of civil commitment decisions uses abuse-of-discretion standard)
In re Commitment of T.J., 401 N.J. Super. 111 (deference afforded to trial court findings in commitment cases)
In re Commitment of M.M., 384 N.J. Super. 313 (appellate reversal only for clear error; consider adequacy of evidence)
In re Commitment of M.C., 385 N.J. Super. 151 (release required when person no longer dangerous and can be supported)
O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (civil commitment requires showing of dangerousness)
In re Commitment of J.R., 390 N.J. Super. 523 (commitment must be based on more than potential for dangerous conduct)
State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1 (appellate courts generally decline issues not raised below)
Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229 (same)