936 N.W.2d 863
Mich. Ct. App.2019Background
- Petitioner filed for involuntary mental-health treatment for Svetlana Tchakarova, alleging she posed a risk to herself/others, failed to attend to basic needs, and lacked capacity to appreciate need for treatment; sought up to 60 days inpatient and 90 days total treatment.
- Two clinical certificates (physician and psychiatrist) diagnosed bipolar/schizoaffective disorder, recommended hospitalization and outpatient care, and noted respondent’s lack of insight and need for injectable medication.
- Dr. Scott Mariouw testified respondent has schizoaffective disorder (bipolar type), disorganized thought/delusions, a 1993 traumatic brain injury, recent reckless driving/speeding tickets, and an arrest for trespassing tied to delusional stalking behavior. He opined she did not understand her need for treatment and posed a risk of harm.
- Respondent disputed need for hospitalization at the hearing, denied current need for treatment, and gave inconsistent statements about medication and past behavior. She was not taking medication at the time of the hearing.
- The probate court ordered involuntary treatment, and respondent appealed. The Court of Appeals considered (1) whether the appeal was moot given the short statutory treatment period and (2) whether the evidence met the clear-and-convincing standard for a “person requiring treatment” under MCL 330.1401(1)(a) and (c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of appeal | Appeal not moot because collateral consequences (firearm possession prohibition) persist and issue likely to recur and evade review | Order expired before appeal resolution, so decision would have no practical legal effect | Not moot: collateral consequences and public-significance/evading-review exception apply |
| Whether evidence satisfied MCL 330.1401(1)(a) (risk of physical injury) | Tickets for reckless driving/speeding, history of multiple car accidents, trespass arrest related to delusions, and expert link to mental illness supported reasonable expectation of serious physical harm | Recent tickets/trespass are insufficient or isolated and do not clearly show expectation of serious physical injury | Held that acts (reckless driving, speeding, trespass) plus history and expert testimony met clear-and-convincing evidence under (a) |
| Whether evidence satisfied MCL 330.1401(1)(c) (impaired judgment, inability to appreciate need for treatment, substantial risk) | Expert testimony showed respondent lacked insight, had delusions causing dangerous conduct, and previously evaded court-ordered treatment, establishing impaired judgment and substantial risk | Testimony did not establish that impaired judgment created a substantial risk of harm | Held that expert testimony established both inability to appreciate need for treatment and substantial risk; statutory (c) satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas M. Cooley Law Sch. v. Doe 1, 300 Mich. App. 245 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (mootness and actual-case-or-controversy principles)
- In re MCI Telecom Complaint, 460 Mich. 396 (Mich. 1999) (threshold mootness analysis)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Dep’t of Treasury, 290 Mich. App. 355 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (definition of mootness)
- Mead v. Bathol, 435 Mich. 480 (Mich. 1990) (collateral legal consequences prevent mootness)
- TM v. MZ, 501 Mich. 319 (Mich. 2018) (expiration of order does not necessarily render challenge moot when collateral consequences remain)
- Socialist Workers Party v. Secretary of State, 412 Mich. 571 (Mich. 1982) (issues likely to evade review)
- In re Midland Publ’g Co., 420 Mich. 148 (Mich. 1984) (appellate review timing and evading-review doctrine)
- In re Bibi Guardianship, 315 Mich. App. 323 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) (standards of review for probate matters)