State of Tennessee Department of Correction v. George Todd
M2016-02038-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Mar 31, 2017Background
- George Todd, a TDOC inmate serving a 45-year sentence (plea in 1995), faced multiple conservatorship proceedings after mental-health deterioration while incarcerated; TDOC sought a limited conservatorship to make healthcare decisions, including authority to consent to forcible medication.
- Todd had a prior limited conservatorship that ended on parole in 2012; he returned to custody in 2013 after parole revocation. A January 2016 TDOC petition was dismissed when his condition briefly improved; TDOC refiled in July 2016 after decline.
- Medical evaluations (treating physician Dr. Molly O’Toole and an independent psychiatrist) concluded Todd suffers from schizoaffective disorder/bipolar-type, exhibited active signs of mental illness, refused treatment, and had delusions and threats; testimony and records showed improvement when medicated and deterioration when unmedicated.
- The trial court appointed a guardian ad litem and attorney ad litem; the guardian’s report documented conflicting views (family describing delusions and breakdowns; a former co-worker describing stability while on parole) but medical records showed significant decline in custody ameliorated by medication.
- The probate court found by clear and convincing evidence that Todd is a person with a disability unable to give informed consent to medical treatment and appointed a limited conservator with authority to consent to medical/psychiatric treatment, including forcible administration when necessary; Todd appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Conservatorship invalidates prior plea/creates habeas subject | Todd: finding of disability renders his plea involuntary/void, entitling him to habeas relief | TDOC: this is a conservatorship matter; habeas was never filed here and this Court lacks jurisdiction over habeas appeal | Court: Claim misplaced and jurisdictional rules preclude considering habeas relief in this appeal |
| 2. Conservatorship is "unnecessary rigor" under Tenn. Const. art. I §13 | Todd: forcible medication/losing consent is unnecessarily rigorous punishment | TDOC: conservatorship is necessary to treat serious mental illness and protect safety; evidence supports necessity | Court: even assuming §13 applies, evidence shows conservatorship was necessary, so no violation |
| 3. Forced medication violates Free Exercise / RLUIPA | Todd: forcible medication substantially burdens sincere religious beliefs and is not least restrictive | TDOC: has compelling interests in safety and medical care; procedure and medical evidence justify conservatorship | Court: accepted compelling interests; found record supports that conservatorship with forcible-treatment authority was the least restrictive means given medical evidence and lack of alternatives presented |
| 4. Conservatorship is not least-restrictive means for prison safety/medical needs | Todd: stability outside prison and less intrusive options make conservatorship unnecessary | TDOC: no proof of viable less-restrictive alternatives; medical testimony supports need | Court: trial court credited medical testimony and absence of evidence of less-restrictive alternatives; affirmed conservatorship |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Conservatorship of Clayton, 914 S.W.2d 84 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995) (purpose of conservatorship is protection of person and property of disabled person)
- Grahl v. Davis, 971 S.W.2d 373 (Tenn. 1998) (fiduciary character of conservator relationship)
- In re Lawton, 384 S.W.3d 754 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (conservators are court-appointed fiduciaries; their duties flow from court orders)
- Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (U.S. 1990) (prisoners have liberty interest in avoiding forced antipsychotic medication; state may medicate under procedures protecting medical interests and safety)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (U.S. 2015) (RLUIPA requires prison regulations that substantially burden religious exercise be the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest)
- Tragle v. Burdette, 438 S.W.2d 736 (Tenn. 1969) (habeas corpus appeals from incarcerated criminal defendants are to be made to the Court of Criminal Appeals)
- Wells v. Tenn. Bd. of Regents, 9 S.W.3d 779 (Tenn. 1999) (appellate courts defer to trial court credibility determinations)