798 N.W.2d 697
Wis. Ct. App.2011Background
- Kelly M. faced a March 2010 petition for involuntary commitment under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1) with diagnoses of developmental disability and bipolar affective disorder; she was subject to a guardian and an order for protective placement and services under ch. 55.
- The petition alleged mental illness and that Kelly met the fifth standard for commitment; probable cause was found and a final hearing conducted.
- Treating psychiatrists opined Kelly met the fifth standard; a psychologist could not determine whether her mental illness satisfied the standard; others testified to dangerous incidents.
- The circuit court found mental illness, incapacity to consent to medications, and substantial risk without treatment, ordering six months of commitment with outpatient treatment and a medication-taking condition; noncompliance could lead to inpatient treatment for up to 30 days.
- The court did not rule on the ch. 55 exclusion issue; Kelly died during proceedings, making some issues moot, but the court addressed them for guidance.
- Definitions and statutory text governing the fifth standard and ch. 55 exclusions were discussed to clarify applicability to dual diagnoses and medication as a service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fifth standard applies to dual diagnoses | Kelly: dual diagnosis excludes fifth standard. | County: dual diagnoses do not bar fifth standard eligibility. | Fifth standard may apply to dual diagnoses. |
| Whether medication is a service under the fifth standard | Medication not a service to trigger exclusion. | Medication falls within treatment services. | Medication is a service under the community services exclusion. |
| Whether ch. 55 exclusion bars fifth standard commitment | Protective placement/services negate substantial harm probability. | Existing ch. 55 orders may reduce harm; exclusion applies. | Ch. 55 exclusion applies if other ch. 55 services would reduce harm; otherwise fifth standard may apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 271 Wis. 2d 633 (Wis. 2004) (interpretation of statutory language and purpose; common meaning to avoid unreasonable results)
- State v. Tremaine Y, 279 Wis. 2d 448 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005) (de novo review of statutory interpretation; dual-diagnosis context)
- Lenz v. L.E. Phillips Career Dev. Ctr., 167 Wis. 2d 53 (Wis. 1992) (mootness guidance and appellate issuance)
- Swatek v. County of Dane, 192 Wis. 2d 47 (Wis. 1995) (dictionary aid for common meaning of words; used to interpret text)