In Re: Linda D.
1 CA-MH 15-0106
Ariz. Ct. App.Jun 15, 2017Background
- On Dec. 3, 2015 DPS found Linda D. wandering after her car ran out of gas; she reported fleeing her son and displayed delusional/paranoid behavior.
- Treating psychiatrist Dr. Thomas petitioned for court-ordered evaluation and then for involuntary treatment, alleging danger to self and persistent/acute disability.
- Physicians diagnosed a psychotic/paranoid disorder; appellant refused antipsychotic medication and had repeated hospitalizations and episodes of homelessness.
- At the Dec. 17 hearing appellant denied disability, claimed delusions about her son and medical researchers, and refused medication.
- Experts and caseworkers testified appellant was delusional, disabled, and likely to benefit from antipsychotics; two psychiatrists provided affidavits supporting disability.
- The superior court found by clear and convincing evidence that appellant was persistently or acutely disabled and a danger to herself, and ordered up to 365 days combined in-patient/out-patient involuntary treatment; appellant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported finding of persistent or acute mental disability (A.R.S. § 36-501(31)) | Appellant: insufficient evidence of substantial probability of severe harm or impairment of decisionmaking; she lives independently and is not disabled | State: delusional paranoia caused repeated hospitalizations, homelessness, refusal of meds, and will cause severe harm if untreated; treatable with medication | Affirmed: substantial evidence supported finding of persistent/acute disability under statutory criteria |
| Whether separate finding of danger to self was required to order involuntary treatment (A.R.S. § 36-540(A)) | Appellant: insufficient evidence she was a danger to herself | State: even if danger-to-self finding weak, statutory scheme allows order based on persistent/acute disability alone | Affirmed: separate danger-to-self finding unnecessary once persistent/acute disability is established; court properly ordered treatment |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Appeal in Pima Cty. Mental Health Serv. Action No. MH-1140-6-93, 176 Ariz. 565 (App. 1993) (standard for affirming involuntary-treatment orders)
- In re Maricopa Cty. Cause No. MH-90-00566, 173 Ariz. 177 (App. 1992) (requires nexus between mental disorder and probable harm for disability finding)
- In re Appeal in Maricopa Cty. of Mental Health Case No. MH-94-00592, 182 Ariz. 440 (App. 1995) (appellate review standard for mental-health commitment findings)