Krine v. W.J.C.A., 810 N.W.2d 327

W.J.C.A. appeals district court orders involuntarily committing him to the State Hospital for up to 90 days and ordering medication.
Probation officer petitioned for involuntary commitment, alleging suicide threats and threats to others; court ordered psychiatric examination and transport to the State Hospital.
Preliminary hearing found probable cause to commit for fourteen days; treating psychiatrist Pryatel described bipolar disorder and manic state, with refused medication.
Treatment hearing found W.J.C.A. mentally ill, a danger to self or others, and in need of treatment; court ordered inpatient treatment and involuntary medication for up to 90 days.
W.J.C.A. was released, then district court ordered less restrictive treatment at a community center with medications for remainder of the period.
Appeal challenges the sufficiency of evidence to support being a person requiring treatment and the propriety of involuntary treatment with medication.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was clear and convincing evidence W.J.C.A. is a person requiring treatment	W.J.C.A. argues the evidence does not show a mental illness or serious risk.	District court relied on expert testimony and independent sources to show mental illness and risk.	Not clearly erroneous; the evidence supports being a person requiring treatment.
Whether the district court properly ordered involuntary treatment with medication	The four statutory criteria for involuntary medicated treatment were not satisfactorily shown.	Pryatel satisfied all four criteria and the court found benefits outweigh risks.	The four-factor standard was satisfied; court did not err.
Whether hearsay considerations undermined the basis for the treatment decision	Reliance on hearsay (reports to the doctor) should not be used to justify the finding.	Experts may rely on admissible or otherwise admissible hearsay to form opinions; Pryatel relied on staff reports and observations.	Properly admitted as basis for medical opinion; not clearly erroneous.

In re D.A., 698 N.W.2d 474 (North Dakota Supreme Court 2005) (review limited to trial court procedures; clear-and-convincing standard applied)
In re W.K., 776 N.W.2d 572 (North Dakota Supreme Court 2009) (clear and convincing standard; balancing liberty and protection)
In re D.P., 636 N.W.2d 921 (North Dakota Supreme Court 2001) (unrefuted expert testimony sufficient to show mental illness)
In re C.A.H., 785 N.W.2d 253 (North Dakota Supreme Court 2010) (four-factor test for involuntary treatment with medication)
In re L.D., 671 N.W.2d 791 (North Dakota Supreme Court 2003) (courts may rely on independent sources beyond petition allegations)
In re P.L.P., 556 N.W.2d 657 (North Dakota Supreme Court 1996) (physician reliance on second-hand information acceptable under rules)
Davis v. Killu, 710 N.W.2d 118 (North Dakota Supreme Court 2006) (experts may testify based on information relied upon; cross-examination required)