Matter of Clements
440 N.W.2d 133
Minn. Ct. App.
1989
Check Treatment

*1 damages already had been determined fur- prior arbitration and that to allow Wayne In the Matter of Patrick double recov-

ther claims would be allow CLEMENTS. ery in of the No-Fault Act. contravention No. CO-89-138. This court affirmed. Id. at 320. Appeals Court of of Minnesota. Quam cites Farm- Ferguson v. Illinois Co., Group May 348 N.W.2d 730 ers Insurance (Minn.1984), proposition for the 21, 1989. Denied June Review specifying arbitrators erred expenses medical award of future because application of the set-

such failure hindered provisions

off of the No-Fault Act for fu- however, Ferguson,

ture benefits. damages specified

future medical were policy

the court that the no-fault lim- held

its, amount, rather than the award

cap the amount the claimant could recover

from its no-fault carrier. Id. at 733. Be- damages speci-

cause the future award was

fied, possible it a credit work out goals

and to harmonize the of the No-Fault

Act, notably, most relief of the victim’s

economic distress and avoidance of double

recovery. 65B.42

However, damages specified such are not amount, hand, dollar as the case at specifically

and the award states it is for damages, future impossible

all it is recovery giving

avoid a pre- double without

clusive effect to the arbitration award. equities note that the

We this resolu- Quam. Quam

tion are not adverse to $28,396.60

proved up in future medical ex- arbitration,

penses $30,- at the when he had remaining

897.48 in his no-fault medical

coverage. general The arbitrators’ award

encompassed the amount claimed

insured, and no substantial windfall can

accrue to the insurer.

DECISION giving

The trial court did not err in res

judicata effect to the arbitrators’ award of damages.

all and future

Affirmed. *2 indicated, however, that in the he

He violent adolescent sex of- has worked with di- currently practices He fenders. illness, of mental agnosis and treatment panel court-ap- has served on the and Hennepin County pointed examiners for Chester, Minneapolis, ap- M.B. Gerald eight approximately District Court pellant Clements. years. Gen., III, Atty. Humphrey, H. Hubert The district court overruled Clements’ Johnson, Hennepin County Thomas L. qualifications Dr. and objection to Sweet’s County Brady, Asst. Atty., M. Coleen testify. Dr. allowed the doctor to Sweet respondent. Minneapolis, for Atty., treat- stated that he reviewed Clements’ him in June ment records and interviewed FOLEY, and decided Considered 1988 to determine whether he continued to and P.J., and NIERENGARTEN psychopathic person- meet the criteria for a IRVINE, JJ., argument. without oral ality. Dr. Sweet testified that there had particular changes no since Clements’ been OPINION initial and that his condition basically remained the same. FOLEY, Judge. Dr. Sweet testified that Clements contin- appeals from an Wayne Patrick Clements unstable, emotionally continued ued his commitment as a continuing order customary good judg- standards to lack affirm. chopathic personality. We ment, appreciate and failed to the conse- actions, rendering him quences of his irre- FACTS respect sponsible for his conduct with 1988, April In was committed Clements per- sexual matters and to other Security Hospital as a to the Minnesota sons. ap- explained Dr. Sweet that Clements' last court, pealed his commitment this sup- two offenses before his commitment unpublished opinion. we affirmed ported his conclusion that Clements is dan- Clements, CX-88-1058, re No. WL escalating. gerous and that his behavior is 26, 1988). (Minn.Ct.App. July Dr. Sweet stated that while an exhibitionist August On the district court usually expose relatively himself at a will 60-day hearing conducted a review upon leave the scene safe distance and issue whether Clements’ commitment as a receiving response, the desired psychopathic personality should be indefi- during did not do that the last two inci- nitely continued. dents before his commitment: 253B.18, Four subds. particular exposure Those incidents of hearing. Roger testified at C. qualitatively were different than other Sweet, consulting psychologist, a licensed examples exposure engaged in. court-appointed testified as the examiner. They were direct confrontations with vic- Dr. Sweet had also testified as the court’s physi- tims and one instance he made examiner at Clements’ initial commitment cal contact That’s dra- with the victim. * * * hearing. matically different than most of previous exhibitionistic behavior and attorney objected Clements’ to Dr. dramatically than the different behavior qualifications, claiming Sweet’s he did not of most exhibitionists. requisite expertise in have the the area of sexual serious adult offenders. Sweet While Dr. admitted that Sweet specific training engaged any dangerous admitted that he had no had not behavior offenders, incidents, the area of violent sexual since those last two he noted that prior experience treating that he had no Clements had been confined in structured persons psychopathic personalities. settings. with treatment n Inten- mitment and had Director of the reviewed Clements’ Richard Ag- for Sexual Program Treatment records. Jacobson testified that he did sive (ITPSA) the Minnesota Securi- gressives statutory believe Clements fit the definition Hospital, he did not recom- ty testified that psychopathic personality of a because he psychopathic per- mend commitment as a actually anyone had not harmed and did *3 sonality. Seely testified that he and anyone. not intend to harm did not believe ITPSA treatment team Following hearing, the trial court is- spec- in dangerous “except a Clements was findings sued its of fact and conclusions of way”. According ulative kind of law, determining that Clements met the emotionally completely was not Clements psychopathic personality definition of a and stable, team did not but the ITPSA believe should be committed to the Minnesota Se- incapable him of judgment rendered curity Hospital period for an indeterminate consequences understanding the of his be- of time. The court’s decision was based in Seely speculated that if invol- havior. also part upon finding “[ljittle any- a that if program, untarily committed to the ITPSA thing, about condition has [Clements’] par- probably be unable to Clements changed during the four months between ticipate very long. for treatment his commitment hearing and this date.” Fox, Douglas psychologist a licensed appealed Clements has from the court’s Security Hospital the Minnesota order, arguing that the evidence was insuf- team, of treatment testi- member Clements’ ficient to sustain the court’s determination Fox had also fied on behalf. Clements’ that he is a testified at Clements’ initial commitment hearing supported petition and had not psychopathic person-

for commitment as a ISSUES ality. 1. Did the trial court abuse its discre- by concluding qualified tion Dr. hearing Sweet was

At the on Clements’ continued commitment, testify as an examiner? Fox testified that the treat- support ment team did not continued com- support 2. Does the record the trial mitment as a be- court’s determination is a that Clements cause the team did not believe Clements’ psychopathic personality requiring indeter- dangerous. conduct was Fox ex- minate commitment? plained seriously that had not Clements anyone past,

harmed in the and the team ANALYSIS actually predict could not that he would challenges Sweet’s anyone harm in the near future. Fox also qualifications as an examiner. We stated appreciate stated that seems to Harhut, (Minn.Ct. consequences 628 of his acts and has In re 367 N.W.2d some (Minn. App.1985),pet. control over his rev. denied June behavior. for 27, 1985): Fox recommended that Clements receive sufficiency “The of the foundation to through treatment for his exhibitionism qualify a witness as an is almost program ITPSA and admitted that left to entirely the trial discre- within court’s devices, probably his own Clements would tion.” voluntary not continue treatment. (quoting Guardianship Id. at 632 In re Jacobson, psychologist James Glenn, (Minn.Ct.App. 363 N.W.2d

private practice, had also testified at the 1985)). Citing Harhut, in In re we stated hearing commitment, initial on Clements’ (Minn.Ct.App. Dibley, 400 N.W.2d stating that Clements exhibited the “least 1987), (Minn. pet. denied March rev. exposing amount control” over his 1987): masturbating, had control over but some hearing Objections grounds his fantasies. At the on Clements’ to an examiner on inadequate experience treating patients continued testified Jacobson patient proposed had seen Clements since his com- similar to the are “more (Minn.Ct.App.1984), N.W.2d weight to be afforded pertinent to 12, 1984). (Minn. Sept. admissibility.” its rev. denied pet. than to county to meet argues the failed at 191. Id. this burden. appeal is whether The standard court stated in Martenies: This in conclud its discretion court abused testify. qualified to of a as to the existence ing the examiner When evidence conflict, the court did conclude is in psychopathic personality id. We determining Dr. discretion abuse its deter- question is one of fact exam testify as an qualified Sweet was upon court all mined the trial iner. evidence. *4 (1988) the Co., 526.09 defines

2. Minn.Stat. Minn. (citing Brown 215 § Id. Dittrich v. personality” as “psychopathic 234, (1943)). term the 9 N.W.2d 510 Where condi- almost any person findings of such of fact are derived the existence court’s instability, impul- testimony, or the entirely expert opinion of emotional from tions behavior, or lack of custom- particular of of siveness court’s determination is trial fail- good judgment, or ary Joelson, standards of 385 N.W.2d significance. In re consequences of appreciate the ure to 810, (Minn.1986). 811 acts, any a combination of personal or re appeal, the standard of our On conditions, person render such as to such the determining limited to whether view is irresponsible personal conduct with findings supported are trial court’s of fact thereby respect to sexual matters and are not clear by the record as a whole and persons. dangerous to other Joelson, 385 N.W.2d at ly erroneous. See In rel. v. Probate Court ex Pearson State Noot, (citing 323 811 Johnson v. N.W.2d 545, County, 205 Minn. 287 Ramsey of (Minn.1982)). Here, although ex three 724 (1939), explained the court the N.W. 297 psy a perts testified that Clements is not legislature’s “psychopathic definition of a personality, testimony by the chopathic , personality”: examiner, Sweet, sup court-appointed * * * language of the act is intend- [T]he ports the court’s determination Clem who, by persons to include those ed a ents is course of misconduct sexual habitual argues that he has never actu- matters have evidenced an utter lack of threats ally injury inflicted or acted on his impulses power to control their sexual Terra, 412 sexual harm. In re N.W. of In likely a attack and who as result are to (Minn.Ct.App.1987),involving com- 2d 325 loss, injury, pain, inflict or or otherwise person, mentally mitment of a ill this court objects their other evil on of uncon- stated: trolled and uncontrollable desire. required delay The trial court was not 287 N.W. at 302. The Id. Pearson appellant or someone commitment until cautioned, however, that it “would court harmed, long actually “so else was apply provisions not be reasonable to had al- danger appellant’s condition every person guilty the statute to of sexual ready become evident.” persons having nor even to misconduct (quoting Harvego, re 389 Id. at 328 In strong propensities.” sexual Id. (Minn.Ct.App.1986)(citing 268 N.W.2d person A committed as a Anderson, N.W.2d In re subject provisions to the is Here, likewise, (Minn.Ct.App.1985)). apply the Minnesota Commitment Act that required to wait until trial court was not persons mentally are who committed as actually harmed someone. public. ill and to the Minn.Stat. Malm, 253B.02, We noted in In re 375 N.W.2d 888 Accordingly, subd. 17 § (Minn.Ct.App.1985),that at a hear- review petitioner by must establish clear and “ ing may findings ‘the court consider the convincing person evidence that a is a following original chopathic personality. of fact made commit- 253B.18, (1988); Martenies, hearing, competent ment and other evi- subd. In re indeterminate commit- receive an should present respondent’s dence relevant ” Security Hospital in St. to the State ment Id. at continued commitment.’ need Peter. 12.- (quoting Minn.R.Civ.Commitment that it is indicated 06). court The Malm Rog- court-appointed was The patient’s behavior consider appropriate to true that the determination It is er Sweet. Here, the initial commitment. to his prior qualified to a witness is as to whether initial commit- after the found trial court solely expert is almost within testify as an psycho- hearing that ment however, court; province of the trial danger to posed a pathic personality testimony given his or her weight to be was reviewed determination This others. by extent of his should be determined review appeal. At the and affirmed my opinion, the full qualification. her or testified specifically hearing, Dr. Sweet given the trial court faith and credit changed condition has that Clements’ qualification exceeded the testimony far commitment. of his initial the time since Sweet, who had never before been of Dr. examining alleged psy- an adult

involved in objectivity of chopathic personality. DECISION The Seely Richard allowing its err court did not The trial *5 by very their Douglas Fox was weakened testi- testify. The examiner’s to examiner workings familiarity with the inner of the the determination mony supports Peter; both state institution St. but re- Clements is psycho- agreed that was not a indeterminate commitment. quiring given and should not pathic personality be Affirmed. commitment. an indeterminate opinion, qualified expert, my The best IRVINE, J., dissents. this, for a case such as James IRVINE, Judge, dissenting. Jacobson, working experience had who respectfully I dissent. dangerous psychopathic person- truly with prisons serving time state alities at least the last undisputed that for It is In his other violent crimes. murder and engaged in has years, Wayne qualify did not opinion, Clements’ condition person’s makes a normal skin conduct that did not psychopathic personality, and (exposing himself while masturbat- crawl indeterminate warrant easy objectivity ing). It is lose one’s thing to a life sentence which is the closest dealing highly with such a emotional while today. Even a mur- have in Minnesota we situation. parole after 17 forward to a derer can look prosecut- question is not whether the The by characterized years, in a manner best attorney judge and/or the trial ing word, “hopefully.” that much-misused endangered feel threatened or personally ignore the references We should behavior; disgusting confronted with such “warehousing” “hope- testimony to question is whether Clements is a un- diagnosis for Clements The lessness.” dangerous to the chopathic personality and is that he commitment der an indeterminate general population, or at least to the fe- warehoused, i.e. hope and be would lose probably That portion male thereof. is hopeless, of' the consigned to the class provision for the use of the why there is that on the “treatment” which would mean by witnesses both sides enough keep sedated side would be But the should be in such cases. violent, becoming permit- him and be from genuine, not chosen to bolster the al- institution until he died ted to “exist” opinion It ready-determined of either side. or ended his own life. a natural death interesting one of the coun- is to note that thing happen agree unjust The most that could ty’s experts, Richard did not point for this county’s opinion respon- at this would be that the with Clements, original order court to use the trial court’s dent-appellant, is and this court’s affirmance meaning within the of the statute and of commitment rubber-stamp the outcome that order to 60-day hearing, deprive and thus legislature protection Clements of statute, him a course of give

intended prosecuting attor-

action advocated discouraged by the trial court.

ney and not reference to prosecutor’s

Because of affirmance, I its have

the first order and the tran- thorough examination of

made a hearings. It seems clear

scripts of both that there are treatment

from both records in Clements’

plans that would effective

case, commit- and that the indeterminate to encour-

ment could be used as a threat

age complete him to the treatment.

I would reverse. Application

In the Matter of

NORTHERN STATES POWER COM Authority

PANY for to Increase Its

Rates of Electric Service Minnesota.

No. C1-88-2406. Appeals

Court of of Minnesota.

May III, Gen., Humphrey, Atty.

Hubert H. Gen., Spec. Mary Murray, Atty. Jo Asst. St. Paul, Dept, for relator Minnesota of Public Service. Bradley Spec. Atty.

Michael J. Asst. Gen., Paul, Atty. St. for intervenor-relator Humphrey, Gen. Hubert H. III. Kingstad, Dittrich, Erik Gregory Jon D. Gen., Paul, Spec. Attys. Asst. St. for Re- spondent Minnesota Public Utilities Com’n.