IN RE PROBATE APPEAL OF MICHAEL NGUYEN
(AC 42922)
Appellate Court of Connecticut
August 11, 2020
Lavine, Alvord and Moll, Js.
Submitted on briefs April 6
***********************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appеllate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
***********************************************
Syllabus
The plaintiff appealed to the trial court from the decree of the Probate Court ordering his involuntary commitment to a psychiatric hospital for treatment of his psychiatric disabilities. The plaintiff had been admitted to the hospital pursuant to a physician‘s emergency certificate. Prior to the expiration of the certificate, the plaintiff signed a voluntary аpplication to be admitted to the hospital as a patient, but, a few hours later, he gave the hospital three business days’ notice in writing of his desire to leave. Four days later, the plaintiff‘s primary clinician filed on behalf of the hospital a petition in the Probate Court for the plaintiff‘s involuntary commitment to the hospital. That same day, the Probate Court, pursuant to the statute (
- The plaintiff could not prevail on his claim that the Probate Court exceeded its statutory authority by involuntarily committing him because the hospital failed to comply with the notice requirements set forth in
§ 17a-498 (e) ; although the hospital staff failed to comply with certain notice requirements of that statute, that failure did not nullify the statutory authority of the Probate Court to hold an involuntary commitment hearing, as the plain language of§ 17a-498 does not condition the Probate Court‘s exercise of power. - Although the Probate Court improperly admitted into evidence a police report that documented an anonymous complaint that the plaintiff had told someone at his therapy group that he had homicidal fantasies, that evidentiary impropriety constituted harmless error, as the police report was admitted in reference to the issue of whether the plaintiff was a danger to others and the Probate Court found that he was not.
- The plaintiff‘s claim that the Probate Court improperly admitted two physician‘s certificates into evidence because
§ 17a-498 (c) does not provide that sworn certificates by psychiatrists are evidence was unavailing; the plain and unambiguous meaning of§ 17a-498 (c) dictates that the Probate Court must require, and therefore consider as evidence, the certificates of at least two physicians as a prerequisite to involuntarily committing a person, and it does not make sense that the Probate Court would be prohibited from considering those required certificates unless formally admitted into evidence. - The plaintiff could not prevail on his claim that the Probate Court‘s findings that he was gravely disabled and that a less restrictive placement was not available were clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, characterized by an abuse of discretion, or a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion, there having been substantial evidence in the record to support those findings; the Probate Court reasonably could have inferred from the substantial evidence, including the plaintiff‘s homicidal fantasies, persecutory delusions and objections to medication, that he was in danger of serious harm as a result of an inability to provide for his own basic needs and that he was incapable of determining whether to accept hospital treatment because his judgment was impaired.
Submitted on briefs April 6—officially released August 11, 2020
Procedural History
Aрpeal from the decree of the Probate Court for the district of Hartford ordering the involuntary commitment of the plaintiff to a psychiatric hospital, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford and tried to the court, Scholl, J.; judgment affirming the decision of the Probate Court, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Peter M. Van Dyke, filed a brief for the appellant (plaintiff).
Mitchell Lake and Rebecca M. Harris, filed a brief for the appellees (defendant Kevin Cobb et al.).
Opinion
The record reveals the following facts and procedural history. The respondent was admitted to the institute on November 30, 2018, pursuant to a physician‘s emergency certificate (emergency certificate). On the morning of Friday, December 14, 2018, prior to the expiration of the emergency certificate, the respondent signed a voluntary application to be admitted as a patient in the institute, pursuant to
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018, the defendant Kevin Cobb3 (petitioner), a licensed clinical social worker and the respondent‘s primary clinician, filed on behalf of the institute a petition in the Probate Court for the respondent‘s involuntary commitment to the institute, alleging that the respondent “has psychiatric disabilities and is dangerous to himself or others or gravely disabled in the following respects . . . [He] presented to the hospital upon concern over statements [that he] made in the community and the findings of several weapons and bomb making instructions at [his] home by [the] local police department. [The respondent] presents with symptoms that align with a psychotic disorder. Continuation of suspiciousness and paranoia toward both [institute] staff and peers remain consistent. [The respondent] feels he [does not] need medication. Further, [the respondent] misinterprets information as to be threatening. His judgment and insight are impoverished. The treatment team feels a longer period of hospitalization is needed at this time to further stabilize [him] on medication.”
That same day, pursuant to
The involuntary commitment hearing took place before the Probate Court on January 2, 2019. Peter Sugarman, a treating psychiatrist at the institute, and the appointed physicians testified. A police report from November 28, 2018, was admitted into evidence, which documented an anonymous complaint that the respondent had told someone at his mediation therapy group that he had homicidal fantasies. Following the hearing, the Probate Court issued a decree in which it found that the respondent was not a danger to others; however, it found by clear and convincing evidence that he was gravely disabled. The Probate Court also found that a less restrictive environment was not a viable option for the respondent because he remained under an order for involuntary medication and he was neither participating
We begin with the standard of review applicable to probate appeals, whiсh is set forth in
I
The respondent first claims that the Probate Court exceeded its statutory authority by involuntarily committing him because the institute failed to comply with the notice requirements set forth in
In addressing this claim, we are mindful that the “Probate Court is a court of limited jurisdiction prescribed by statute, and it may exercise only such powers as are necessary to the performance of its duties. . . . As a court of limited jurisdiction, it may act only when the facts and circumstanсes exist upon which the legislature has conditioned its exercise of power. . . . Such a court is without jurisdiction to act unless it does so under the precise circumstances and in the manner particularly prescribed by the enabling legislation.” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Henrry P. B.-P., 327 Conn. 312, 324, 173 A.3d 928 (2017).
The statute at issue,
We agree with the respondent that (1) there is no evidence indicating that a member of the institute staff informed the respondent that he could continue in the hospital on a voluntary basis and (2) the petition for involuntary commitment failed to include a statement that the respondent was offered voluntary commitment status and that he refused. See
II
We now turn to the respondent‘s evidentiary claims. As a preliminary matter, we note that the rules of evidence apply to involuntary commitment proceedings. See
A
The respondent claims that the Probate Court improperly admitted a police report
At the hearing, Sugarman testified that the respondent was a danger to others. Sugarman‘s testimony was predicated on a police report from November 28, 2018, which documented an anonymous complaint that the resрondent had told someone at his mediation therapy group that he had homicidal fantasies.8 Counsel for the petitioner proffered that police report as foundational support for Sugarman‘s conclusion that the respondent was a danger to others. Counsel for the respondent objected to the admission of the police report on the grounds that, inter alia, there was no one to authenticate the record and the record contained inadmissible hearsay. The Probate Court admitted the police report into evidence over the respondent‘s objections.
“An out-of-court statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted is hearsay and is generally inadmissible unless an exception applies. . . . Police reports are normally admissible under the business records exception to the hеarsay rule as set forth in
Moreover, “[a]uthentication is . . . a necessary preliminary to the introduction of most writings in evidence. . . . A proponent may authenticate a document by demonstrating proof of authorship of, or other connection with, [such] writings. . . . In general, a writing may be authenticated by a number of methods, including direct testimony, circumstantial evidence or proof of custody. . . .”
“The requirements for authenticating business record are identical to those for laying a foundatiоn for its admissibility under the hearsay exception. It is generally held that business records may be authenticated by the testimony of one familiar with the books of the concern,
The police report did not fall within the business record exception to the hearsay rule because it was not based entirely on the police officer‘s own observations or on information provided by an observer with a business duty to report such information. See Pirolo v. DeJesus, supra, 97 Conn. App. 589. Specifically, the police report contained statements made by numerous individuals other than the reporting police officer or an observer with a duty to report, including those of an anonymous complainant, the rеspondent, and the respondent‘s father. The police report was also improperly admitted because the petitioner failed to authenticate the report through direct testimony, circumstantial evidence, or proof of custody. See Emigrant Mortgage Co. v. D‘Agostino, supra, 94 Conn. App. 811-12. We therefore conclude that the police report was improperly admitted into evidence.
In any event, we are satisfied that the admission of the police report constituted harmless error. “When a court commits an evidentiary impropriety, we will reverse the trial court‘s judgment only if we conclude that the trial court‘s improper ruling harmed [a party]. . . . In a civil case, a party proves harm by showing that the improper evidentiary ruling likely affected the outcome of the proceeding.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) DeNunzio v. DeNunzio, supra, 320 Conn. 204.
As stated previously, counsel for the petitioner proffered the police report in reference to Sugarman‘s assessment that the respondent was a danger to others. The Probate Court ultimately concluded, however, that “based on the testimony by both the treating psychiatrist . . . Sugarman, and the two [appointed physicians], the court does not find proof that the respondent is presently a danger to others. He has not repeated any threats of harm and has maintained his composure during his stay at the [institute] and during the court hearing.” The Superior Court concluded on appeal that the admission of the police report was harmless because “[it] was admitted in reference to the issue of whether the [respondent] was a danger to others and the Probate Court found that he was not.” The respondent did not address this conclusion by the Superior Court and failed entirely tо brief the harmfulness prong of his evidentiary claim. See, e.g., State v. Durdek, 184 Conn. App. 492, 504–505, 195 A.3d 388 (to establish reversible error, appellant must prove existence of both erroneous ruling and resulting harm), cert. denied, 330 Conn. 934, 194 A.3d 1197 (2018). We agree with the Superior Court that the admission of the police report was harmless error and therefore reject the respondent‘s claim.
B
The respondent‘s second evidentiary claim is that the Probate Court improperly admitted two physician‘s certificates into evidence because
“When construing a statute, [o]ur fundamental objective is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature. . . . In other words, we seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, the meaning of the statutory language as applied to the facts of [the] case, including the question of whether the language actually does apply. . . . In seeking to determine that meaning,
We conclude that the plain and unambiguous meaning of
III
The respondent claims that the Probate Court‘s findings that he was gravely disabled and that a less restrictive placement was not available were clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, characterized by an abuse of discretion, or a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion
As stated previously, on appeal, we shall affirm the decision of the Probate Court unless the “substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are . . . (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record, or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.”
“‘As this court has previously noted, the scope of our review regarding an administrative appeal is restricted. A court must determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the agency‘s findings of basic fact and whether the conclusions drawn from those facts are reasonable. . . . Neither this court nor the trial court may retry the case or substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency on the weight of the evidence or questions of fact. . . . Our ultimate duty is to determine, in view of all of the evidence, whether the agency [or court], in issuing its order, acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion. . . . The substantial evidence standard is satisfied if the record provides a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred. . . . As an appellate court, we do not review the evidence to determine whether a conclusion different from the one reached could have been reached. . . . The goal of our analysis is simply to decide whether the trial court‘s conclusion was reasonable. . . . Using this standard as a backdrop, we will give deference to the Probate Court‘s determination of the credibility of witnesses and its factual determinations.‘” (Citations omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Falvey v. Zurolo, supra, 130 Conn. App. 256–57.
The following additional facts are relevant to our resolution of the respondent‘s claim. At the commitment hearing, Sugarman, Peterson, and Nelken testified as to the respondent‘s condition. All three physicians testified that the respondent is gravely disabled. All three opined that the respondent‘s psychiatric disability resulted in serious disruption of his mental and behavioral functioning and thаt his psychiatric disability will result in a serious disruption of his mental and behavioral functioning in the future. They further opined that hospital treatment is necessary for the respondent, that a less restrictive placement is not recommended, and that the respondent is not capable of understanding the need to accept treatment on a voluntary basis.
Sugarman diagnosed the respondent with “delusional disorder, rule out schizophrenia.” He testified that the respondent harbors unusual beliefs despite the fact that they may not be real and that the respondent is prone to misinterpreting, such as his delusional thoughts that people are going to turn against and take control of him. Sugarman further testified that the respondent is suspicious, guarded, paranoid, and mistrustful of others. Sugarman
Peterson diagnosed the respondent with schizophrenia. Peterson opined that the respondent wаs gravely disabled because his perception of reality is impaired. He further opined that the respondent remains paranoid and delusional, with ongoing fantasies of killing others. Peterson testified that the respondent has no insight into the nature and seriousness of his situation. Peterson testified that the respondent told his therapist that he had a fantasy of wearing a mask and walking through a school with a rifle.
Nelken diagnosed the respondent with “paranoid schizophrenia, chronic.” Nelken opined that the respondent was gravely disabled because he is too fearful and agitated to manage on his own. Nelken opined that the respondent became homicidal from persecutory delusions. Nelken opined that the respondent is permanently disabled and requires a structured setting to support his treatment. Nelken testified that the respondent had an unusual self-concept and attitude toward the world. Nelken stated that it was “evident to [him] that this is a young man who is struggling with feelings that he doesn‘t know how to control any way except by physical rigidity and . . . very careful speech. This . . . is somebody who‘s in grave distress.” Nelken testified that the respondent has homicidal fantasies, has threatened people at gunpoint, and was struggling to regulate his emotions. Nelken further testified that the respondent objects to the medication he was being given. Nelken also testified that the respondent was unable to discuss his difficulties while he was in the armed services: “He is unable to . . . comprehend how it was that he was separated from the service or . . . to make any account of his actions at that time. He‘s not able to discuss his internal processes. And I said at the outset, he gives very unusual and bizarre evidence of attempting to physiсally restrain himself as a way of controlling his emotions and his actions.”
Following the hearing, the Probate Court found as follows: “The testimony provided by the three psychiatrists does indicate that at this time the respondent is gravely disabled. And while the [c]ourt does agree that many individuals with the respondent‘s present diagnosed condition are able to live in a less restrictive environment, at this time, this does not seem to be a viable option in the present case. The testimony [of the physicians is consistent in] that the [respondent] was not participating in his treatment plans or communicating his intents for discharge with the treatment plan. He remains under an order for involuntary medication. The [c]ourt is aware that the respondent‘s father is seeking alternative treatment programs and believes that these should be explored as part of his discharge plan. Therefore, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent has psychiatric disabilities and is gravely disabled. The court further finds that a less restrictive placement is not available at this time.”
We are not persuaded by the respondent‘s claim that the Probate Court‘s findings that he was gravely disabled and that a less restrictive placement was not available were clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, characterized by an abuse of discretion, or a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. There is substantial evidence in the record that the respondent was indeed gravely disabled and that a less restrictive placement was not a viable option at that time. Specifically, the Probate Court reasonably could have inferred from the substantial evidence, including his homicidal fantasies, persecutory delusions, and objections to medication, that the respondent was in danger of serious harm as a result of an inability to provide for his own basic needs and that he was incapable of determining whether to accept hospital treatment because his judgment is impaired. We therefore conclude that the Probate Court‘s findings were not erroneous as the respondent claims.
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
LAVINE, J.