People v. Nicholas L.
407 Ill. App. 3d 1061
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Respondent Nicholas L. was voluntarily admitted to Elmhurst Memorial Hospital on Aug 26, 2009 for mental illness with manic features; the State sought court authorization for ECT and later psychotropic medications under 405 ILCS 5/2-107.1; Dr. Cullinane testified to bipolar disorder with manic and psychotic features and to capacity concerns; the proposed treatment included Risperdal Consta and Haldol Decanoate; the trial court granted the petition after finding lack of capacity; the appeal was pursued on issues of statutory compliance and capacity; the order was entered Sept 14, 2009 and expired 90 days later; the court assessed mootness and public-interest exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was written notification of alternatives required by 2-102(a-5) provided? | State argues lack of need due to actual knowledge. | Respondent contends lack of written alternatives violates 2-102(a-5). | Reversed for lack of written notification of alternatives. |
| Is the public-interest mootness exception applicable to review? | Public nature and need for guidance. | Exception applies. | Public-interest mootness exception applies; merits reviewed. |
| Did the State prove by clear and convincing evidence that respondent lacked capacity to decide about the proposed medication? | State relied on expert opinion of Dr. Cullinane. | Respondent had capacity given evidence of understanding and choice; equivocal testimony. | Trial court’s capacity finding reversed; respondent did not lack capacity. |
| Were the Israel factors properly applied to determine capacity? | Israel factors supported lack of capacity. | Factors show respondent could understand and choose; not dispositive. | Israel analysis favors reversal; no lack of capacity established. |
| Was there inconsistency between petition and evidence or improper reliance on best interests? | Preprinted forms caused potential inconsistency; best-interests not dispositive. | Best interests supported necessity of treatment. | Court erred in relying on lack of statutory compliance; case reversed for overall reasons. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Laura H., 404 Ill. App.3d 286 (2010) (public-interest mootness and written-notification requirements under 2-102(a-5))
- John R., 339 Ill. App. 3d 778 (2003) (written notification required; informed decision standard)
- Gloria C., 401 Ill. App.3d 271 (2010) (Israel factors and capacity assessment guidance)
- Louis S., 361 Ill. App.3d 774 (2005) (pre-notice/notice requirements and prejudice discussion)
- A.W., 381 Ill. App.3d 950 (2008) (written notification of risks/alternatives critical to manifest weight)