In re the Involuntary Treatment of: B.W.
34388-0
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- B.W., diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder and substance use issues, voluntarily admitted in July 2015 after homicidal command hallucinations; repeatedly expressed homicidal ideation and requested discharge to a different region.
- Multiple successive involuntary detention petitions were filed: 72-hour, 14-day, 90-day (stipulated), then 180-day (stipulated to allegations in petition but later committed solely on grave-disability grounds), and finally a new 180-day petition before the last term expired.
- Dr. Gunderson prepared a four-page report alleging cognitive/volitional impairment, assaultive behavior, homicidal ideation, homelessness, medication noncompliance, and need for inpatient care and substance-abuse treatment; the report was incorporated into the commitment petition.
- At the hearing B.W. (through counsel) sought a hearing to hear concerns and explore voluntary status; he did not vigorously contest facts; he had previously stipulated to earlier petitions but did not stipulate to the trial court’s later detailed factual findings.
- The trial court found B.W. gravely disabled under both RCW 71.05.020(17)(a) and (b) definitions and ordered 180 days involuntary treatment; on appeal the court reviewed whether sufficient evidence supported grave disability, treating the legal conclusion as reviewable despite stipulation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (B.W.) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether B.W. was gravely disabled under RCW 71.05.020(17)(a) (failure to provide essential needs creating high probability of serious physical harm) | Insufficient evidence that failure to obtain food, clothing, or medical care placed him in high probability of serious physical harm | Petition and testimony (Dr. Gunderson) show homelessness and likely failure to obtain shelter/medical care if released | Court: Substantial evidence supports failure to obtain shelter/medical care but not that such failure created a high probability of serious physical harm; subsection (a) not met |
| Whether B.W. was gravely disabled under RCW 71.05.020(17)(b) (severe deterioration in routine functioning and not receiving essential care) | Insufficient evidence of recent significant loss of cognitive/volitional control and that he would not receive essential care if released | Dr. Gunderson’s report and testimony showed impaired cognitive/volitional functioning, medication noncompliance, substance use, and that he would not obtain essential aftercare or medications if released | Court: Substantial evidence supports (b); B.W. gravely disabled under subsection (b); commitment affirmed |
| Whether B.W.’s stipulation to the petition bars appellate review of sufficiency | Stipulation should preclude review; he conceded allegations at trial | A stipulation to a legal conclusion (grave disability) does not bind appellate courts; factual stipulations here did not cover the trial court’s additional findings | Court: Legal conclusions reviewable despite stipulation; court independently reviewed the record |
| Whether the trial court’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence | Trial court findings unsupported (general claim) | State points to Dr. Gunderson’s report and testimony plus B.W.’s stipulations and history | Court: Some factual findings (re: (b)) supported; some (re: (a): nourishment/clothing and high-probability-of-harm) were unsupported |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Def. of LaBelle, 107 Wn.2d 196 (state involuntary civil-commitment standards and due-process principles)
- O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975) (state cannot constitutionally confine a nondangerous individual capable of surviving safely in freedom)
- State v. Drum, 168 Wn.2d 23 (2010) (stipulations to legal conclusions do not bind appellate review of legal issues)
- State v. Case, 187 Wn.2d 85 (2016) (definition and effect of stipulations)
- In re Def. of MK., 168 Wn. App. 621 (2012) (treatment of gravely disabled as a legal conclusion)
- In re Involuntary Treatment of L.T.S., 197 Wn. App. 230 (2016) (appealability and continuing consequences of commitment orders)