Civil Commitment — involuntary medication

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Civil

Civil Commitment — involuntary medication

Where a medical expert’s terminology and recitation of facts did not sufficiently address and meet the statutory standard, involuntary medication must be reversed.

“The circuit court misstated the burden of proof. In any event, the County failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Melanie was ‘substantially incapable of applying’ an understanding of the advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives of her prescribed medication to her mental illness in order to make an informed choice as to whether to accept or refuse the medication. The County did not overcome Melanie’s presumption of competence to make an informed choice to refuse medication.”

“In particular, the medical expert’s terminology and recitation of facts did not sufficiently address and meet the statutory standard. Medical experts must apply the standards set out in the competency statute. An expert’s use of different language to explain his or her conclusions should be linked back to the standards in the statute. When a county disapproves of the choices made by a person under an involuntary medication order, it should make a detailed record of the person’s noncompliance in taking prescribed medication and show why the noncompliance demonstrates the person’s substantial incapability of applying his or her understanding of the medication to his or her mental illness.”

Reversed.

2012AP99 Outagamie County v. Melanie L.

Prosser, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Hagopian, Suzanne L., Madison; For Respondent: Guidote, Joseph P., Jr., Appleton; Schroeder, Mark G., Appleton