2022 IL 126256
Ill.2022Background
- In 2013 Craig H. executed an Illinois statutory short-form health care power of attorney naming his mother, Teresa H., as agent.
- Craig, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder (bipolar type) for decades, was hospitalized and found unfit to stand trial; in Nov. 2018 a McFarland psychiatrist petitioned under 405 ILCS 5/2-107.1 to involuntarily administer psychotropic medications, attaching the POA.
- Teresa, the appointed agent, repeatedly refused consent to psychotropic medication, stating she would not permit any meds; the petitioning psychiatrist testified Craig lacked capacity and that meds were necessary.
- Craig moved to dismiss under section 2-619, arguing the agent’s refusal controlled; the trial court denied the motion and, after a hearing, granted a 90-day involuntary-medication order under section 2-107.1.
- The appellate court affirmed (addressing mootness via exceptions); the Illinois Supreme Court granted review and ultimately affirmed, holding the Mental Health Code permits a section 2-107.1 petition even when a health care agent exists and objects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a valid health care power of attorney and the agent's refusal preclude a section 2-107.1 petition for involuntary psychotropic medication | Craig: agent's refusal is the principal's decision; a valid, unrevoked POA makes the agent's decision binding and bars the petition | State: Mental Health Code provides two independent alternatives—either agent consent or involuntary treatment under 2-107.1; POA existence does not require dismissal | The court held the Mental Health Code allows filing/granting a 2-107.1 petition despite an existing POA; 2-107.1 is a narrow exception to agent authority when statutory standards are met |
| Mootness and reviewability of expired 90-day order | Craig: (implicit) relief moot because order expired | State: exceptions apply; issue is capable of repetition and of public interest | Court applied exceptions (capable of repetition yet evading review; public interest) and reached the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.E., 161 Ill.2d 200 (1994) (competent recipient’s previously expressed wishes are highly relevant in 2-107.1 proceedings)
- 1010 Lake Shore Ass’n v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2015 IL 118372 (2015) (statutes on same subject should be construed harmoniously)
- Knolls Condominium Ass’n v. Harms, 202 Ill.2d 450 (2002) (specific statutory provisions control over general ones)
- In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill.2d 345 (2009) (90-day orders are too short for ordinary appellate review; supports repetition-evading-review analysis)
- In re Andrea F., 208 Ill.2d 148 (2003) (mootness doctrine: appeal is moot when effective relief cannot be granted)
- Elementary School District 159 v. Schiller, 221 Ill.2d 130 (2006) (the word "or" is disjunctive and indicates separate alternatives)
- Haage v. Zavala, 2021 IL 125918 (2021) (courts must not read into a clear statute exceptions not expressed by the legislature)
- Palos Community Hosp. v. Humana Ins. Co., 2021 IL 126008 (2021) (statutory-construction questions reviewed de novo)