In re Carol B.
2017 IL App (4th) 160604
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- respondent was hospitalized for psychiatric treatment beginning June 18, 2016; two petitions (involuntary admission and involuntary treatment) were filed and consolidated on appeal
- Dr. Reddy treated respondent and began psychotropic medications June 18, 2016; electroconvulsive therapy began July 5, 2016, before a hearing ordered for July 22, 2016
- trial court found a 2-107(a) violation for administering medication without consent but deemed it harmless and granted 90-day orders
- respondent challenged both the seizure of rights via premature medication and the lack of written risk/benefit information required by 2-107.1
- the court held the delay and lack of prior written information, combined with pre-hearing medication, violated due-process, prompting reversal of involuntary admission and involuntary-treatment orders
- the matter was deemed moot for purposes of the 90-day order, but public-interest exception allowed merits review on the 2-107(a) violation
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the State violate 2-107(a) by giving medication without consent pre-hearing? | Carol B. (respondent) | Memorial/State | Yes, violation occurred; not harmless per record |
| Was the delay in hearing and lack of written risk information a due-process violation? | Respondent | State | Yes, prejudicial; require reversal |
| Are the remedies for 2-107(a) violations limited or require reversal of orders? | Reversal of involuntary orders warranted | Remedy could be harmless-error | Remedies reversed; involuntary admission and treatment vacated |
| Is the mootness doctrine applicable, and does the public-interest exception permit review? | Public-interest review needed; issues likely to recur | Mootness should bar review | Public-interest exception applied; merits reviewed |
| Did the pre-hearing medication affect the court’s later findings on capacity and treatment necessity? | Medication tainted capacity determinations | Treatment appropriate given risk | Court’s reliance on pre-hearing medication invalid; reversal required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Luttrell, 261 Ill. App. 3d 221 (1994) (balance liberty and public-safety interests in MHDC proceedings)
- In re Barbara H., 183 Ill. 2d 482 (1998) (mootness; public-interest exception for future guidance)
- In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d 345 (2009) (mootness and public-interest considerations in guardianship/priority)
- In re John N., 364 Ill. App. 3d 996 (2006) (due-process protections in involuntary-treatment context)
- In re Todd K., 371 Ill. App. 3d 539 (2007) (clear-and-convincing standard and review of evidence)