Binstock v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation
2011 ND 15
| N.D. | 2011Background
- In 2006 the trial court committed A.O. as a sexually dangerous individual to DHS custody.
- In 2007 a review hearing concluded A.O. remained sexually dangerous and continued commitment.
- In 2008 the court ordered assessments: developmental and neuro-psychological; DHS and clinicians provided results.
- In May 2009 A.O. sought discharge and an independent expert was appointed (Dr. Riedel).
- In April 2010 a full discharge hearing was held; testimony from Dr. Lisota and Kerry Wicks was heard.
- On June 9, 2010 the court found A.O. remains sexually dangerous and that North Dakota State Hospital is the least restrictive appropriate placement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who determines the least restrictive treatment? | A.O. argues the trial court should assess treatment options at discharge. | The executive director must determine least restrictive placement under §25-03.3-13. | Executive director controls least restrictive determination. |
| Was the North Dakota State Hospital the least restrictive option for A.O.? | A.O. contends there may be a less restrictive program. | Record shows Hospital is least restrictive given cognitive functioning and MR. | Court's finding supported by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Did the discharge hearing permit judicial review of treatment placement? | Discharge proceedings should review treatment placement for legality. | DSH authority governs placement; discharge review is limited. | Discharge hearing allowed limited review of DHS decision; upheld. |
| Does the record support continued commitment under due process? | Continued commitment with ineffective treatment violates due process. | No due process violation; treatment and designation properly tailored. | Substantive due process claim rejected; record supports continued commitment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Midgett, 783 N.W.2d 27 (N.D. 2010) (modified clearly erroneous standard; burden clear and convincing at discharge)
- Matter of Rush, 766 N.W.2d 720 (N.D. 2009) (credibility and weight of expert testimony on review)
- Interest of B.V., 708 N.W.2d 877 (N.D. 2006) (statutory limits on initial treatment options)
- Matter of G.R.H., 711 N.W.2d 587 (N.D. 2006) (executive director authorized to decide least restrictive program)