504 P.3d 951
Ariz. Ct. App.2022Background
- Appellant G.B., a 70-year-old woman severely underweight and diagnosed with delusional disorder, refused psychiatric medication and dietary treatment during hospitalizations, prompting a petition alleging she was persistently or acutely disabled (PAD).
- Two Banner psychiatrists (Drs. Madan and Colon) completed affidavits, PAD addenda, and separate written reports; the affidavits were largely conclusory/boilerplate, while the reports contained detailed observations but were not notarized or signed under penalty of perjury.
- Trial court admitted the affidavits and reports, heard testimony (Madan testified; Colon did not), found by clear and convincing evidence that G.B. was PAD, and ordered involuntary treatment (up to one year; inpatient up to 180 days).
- On appeal G.B. argued the physicians’ affidavits failed to comply with A.R.S. § 36-533(B) (not including results of physical exams and lacking individualized factual detail) and thus were legally insufficient to support involuntary treatment.
- The majority vacated the involuntary-treatment order, holding the affidavits did not strictly comply with § 36-533(B) and attached, nonnotarized reports could not be treated as the required affidavits; one physician’s testimony could not cure the second deficient affidavit.
- The presiding judge dissented, arguing the affidavit defects were waived or invited, Madan’s testimony and the admitted reports cured any deficiencies, and the record contained ample evidence to support the PAD finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the physicians' affidavits complied with A.R.S. § 36-533(B)'s requirements to describe behavior supporting PAD and include results of relevant physical exams | Affidavits were boilerplate, omitted physical-exam results and detailed factual descriptions | Affidavits plus attached reports and testimony satisfied statutory purpose; any defects were curable | Affidavits did not strictly comply; vacatur required because statutory strict compliance is mandatory |
| Whether written reports attached to affidavits (not notarized) may be treated as part of the sworn affidavits | Reports cannot substitute for or be considered part of the sworn affidavits required by § 36-533(B) | Reports accompanied and supplemented the affidavits and were intended to provide the requisite detail | Attached, nonnotarized reports were not incorporated into the sworn affidavits and thus could not cure affidavit deficiencies |
| Whether testimony at the hearing can cure a deficient physician affidavit | Testimony cannot cure both physicians' affidavit defects where one physician did not testify | Testimony (Madan) cured his affidavit; stipulations and admitted materials cured Colon's deficiencies | Madan's testimony might cure his affidavit, but one cured affidavit alone is insufficient; absent testimony from Colon, deficiencies in his affidavit remained uncured |
| Whether the evidence otherwise supported the PAD finding despite procedural defects | Physicians failed to study pertinent information; evidence insufficient | There was ample medical evidence and corroborating testimony showing PAD; waiver/invited error bars appellate review | Majority did not resolve merits due to procedural defect and vacated; dissent would have affirmed on the merits, finding substantial evidence supported PAD |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Commitment of Alleged Mentally Disordered Pers., 181 Ariz. 290 (Ariz. 1995) (requires strict statutory compliance and distinguishes acquaintance witnesses from evaluators)
- Burchett v. Superior Court, 23 Ariz. App. 11 (Ariz. App. 1975) (commitment proceedings void if not conducted in strict compliance)
- In re Maricopa Cnty. Superior Court No. MH 2001-001139, 203 Ariz. 351 (App. 2002) (reiterating strict compliance requirement in involuntary-treatment proceedings)
- In re Maricopa Cnty. Mental Health No. MH 2008-001188, 221 Ariz. 177 (App. 2009) (standard of review: view facts most favorably to sustaining trial court’s order)
- Hayes v. Continental Ins. Co., 178 Ariz. 264 (Ariz. 1994) (apply plain statutory language when clear)
- Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127 (U.S. 1992) (forced medication is substantial interference with liberty)
- Large v. Superior Court, 148 Ariz. 229 (Ariz. 1986) (forced medication as a form of bodily restraint)