In Re Mh2010-002348, 268 P.3d 392

Appellant was adjudicated GEI and committed to the Hospital for 10.5 years under A.R.S. §§ 13-502(D), -3994(A).
GEI defendants fall under PSRB jurisdiction for a 'period of treatment,' but GEI statutes lack a fixed procedure for involuntary treatment when non-emergency treatment is refused.
The Hospital sought court-ordered treatment under civil commitment statutes A.R.S. §§ 36-501 to -546.01 due to persistent or acutely disabled status.
A hearing occurred after continuances granted at Patient's requests to obtain independent medical evaluation; the court ordered inpatient treatment for up to 180 days upon finding P&D by clear and convincing evidence.
Patient challenged: (i) jurisdiction due to timeliness and pre-petition procedures; and (ii) sufficiency of evidence for persistent or acutely disabled status.
The court of appeals affirmed, holding no jurisdictional defect from non-strict pre-petition compliance given GEI adjudication and due-process sufficiency, and affirming the evidence supporting disability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether hearing timeliness within six days was required	Patient contends timeliness requirements were violated	State argues continuances to allow independent evaluation were invited by Patient	No automatic jurisdictional divestiture; error invited and permissible to rely on continuances
Whether pre-petition civil commitment procedures must strictly apply	Patient asserts pre-petition evaluation procedures were required	GEI adjudication supplants need for strict pre-petition evaluation under civil commitment	Strict pre-petition compliance not required; due process met under GEI context
Whether there was sufficient evidence that Patient was persistently or acutely disabled	Evidence insufficient to prove disability under § 36-501(33) and § 36-540	Treating physicians and witnesses showed risk and incapacity to consent to treatment	Evidence supported that Patient was persistently or acutely disabled

In re Jesse M., 217 Ariz. 74, 170 P.3d 683 (App. 2007) (strict statutorily-based interpretation with de novo review)
In re MH XXXX-XXXXXX, 218 Ariz. 538, 189 P.3d 1111 (App. 2008) (strict compliance considerations for involuntary treatment orders)
In re MH XXXX-XXXXXX, 221 Ariz. 277, 211 P.3d 1261 (App. 2009) (civil commitment interplay with Rule 11 involuntary evaluation)
Schlecht v. Schiel, 76 Ariz. 214, 262 P.2d 252 (1953) (invited error doctrine; limits on appealing trial conduct)
State v. Armstrong, 208 Ariz. 345, 93 P.3d 1061 (2004) (statutory compliance and division of power in proceedings)
Anderson v. State, 135 Ariz. 578, 663 P.2d 570 (App. 1982) (Anderson as potential resolving authority for involuntary evaluation hierarchy)
Large v. Superior Court, 148 Ariz. 231, 714 P.2d 404 (1986) (due process in involuntary medical treatment under court order)