2013 IL App (4th) 121004
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Respondent David M. was involuntarily admitted for up to 90 days and subjected to psychotropic-medication treatment for up to 90 days.
- A petition seeking involuntary admission and a separate petition for involuntary psychotropic medication were filed and heard together at Blessing Hospital in Adams County.
- Respondent moved to transfer the proceedings to his home county (Scott County); the trial court denied the transfer request.
- Dr. Salvador Sanchez, a psychiatrist at Blessing Hospital, testified respondent had schizoaffective disorder with behaviors indicating danger and inability to provide for basic needs, and recommended Risperdal or Invega Sustenna.
- The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that respondent was subject to involuntary admission and also granted the psychotropic-medication petition, but on appeal the court reversed only the medication order while affirming the admission order.
- The court held that notice deficiencies and lack of a separate-hearing requirement for the medication petition invalidated that portion, while transfer and admission rulings were upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer to residence county under 3-800(a) | Respondent sought transfer to Scott County. | Court should grant transfer; records show witnesses in Scott County. | No abuse of discretion; transfer denied but proper under statute. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for involuntary admission | State proved mental illness and inability to meet basic needs by clear and convincing evidence. | Challenges based on reliance on unsourced letter and physician’s opinions. | Record supported involuntary admission; not against manifest weight. |
| Notice and hearing for involuntary medication petition | State complied with statutory requirements. | Notice and separate hearing for medication petition required; not satisfied. | Reversed the medication-order due to notice and separation deficiencies. |
| Written advisement of medication effects | Advisement complied with requirements. | Respondent was not advised in writing about medications. | Reversal of medication-order affirmed due to lack of written advisement. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Robert F., 396 Ill. App. 3d 304 (2009) (public-interest mootness and public concerns in transfer considerations; standard of review for statutory compliance)
- In re A.W., 381 Ill. App. 3d 950 (2008) (public-interest exception to mootness; use of merits analysis when exceptions apply)
- In re Lillie M., 375 Ill. App. 3d 852 (2007) (medical-opinion basis and evidentiary sufficiency for involuntary admission)
- In re Tommy B., 372 Ill. App. 3d 677 (2007) (need not wait for actual harm; expert necessity and weight of evidence standard)
- In re Linda K., 407 Ill. App. 3d 1146 (2011) (writing-advisement requirement for medication and protections of liberty interests)