In the Matter of the Protective Proceeings of Nora D., 485 P.3d 1058

Nora D., an 82-year-old assisted‑living resident who suffered a stroke, faced a guardianship petition by her daughter and a competing conservatorship review by her grandson; capacity was the central issue.
The superior court ordered a court‑appointed psychiatric/mental examination by a petitioner’s expert, allowed Nora’s counsel and expert to attend but prohibited them from interfering, and barred Nora from remaining silent during the exam.
Nora challenged the order, invoking AS 13.26.241(a), which grants a respondent the right to refuse to answer questions during examinations and evaluations but allows requirement to submit to "interviews for the purpose of ascertaining whether the ward or respondent lacks the capacity to make informed decisions about care and treatment services."
The case presented the legal question whether that statutory exception permits compelling answers to all questions at court‑ordered mental examinations or is limited to questions about capacity to make personal medical decisions.
The Alaska Supreme Court concluded the exception is limited: respondents may be compelled only to answer questions aimed at determining capacity to make informed decisions about care and treatment (i.e., personal medical decisions), vacated the superior court’s order, and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of AS 13.26.241(a): can a respondent be compelled to answer at a court‑ordered mental examination beyond questions about care/treatment capacity?	Nora: statute allows silence at examinations; "interviews" exception is narrow and does not authorize compelling answers at expert examinations.	Kevin/DHSS: exception allows compelled answers when purpose is to determine decision‑making capacity or general capacity; DHSS urges broader reading tied to evaluation purpose.	A respondent may be required to answer only questions designed to determine capacity to make informed decisions about care and treatment services (personal medical decisions); she may refuse other questions.

Rosauer v. Manos, 440 P.3d 145 (Alaska 2019) (principles for statutory interpretation)
Alyssa B. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 123 P.3d 646 (Alaska 2005) (standard for reviewing court‑ordered exams under Rule 35)
In re O.S.D., 672 P.2d 1304 (Alaska 1983) (describing guardianship statute’s policy of restraint)
In re W.A., 193 P.3d 743 (Alaska 2008) (use of expert interviews focused on "informed medical decisions")
Huffman v. State, 204 P.3d 339 (Alaska 2009) (medical decisionmaking as a liberty interest under state law)
Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (U.S. 1990) (right to refuse medical treatment; bodily integrity and informed consent)