Case Title: JL v. Miller

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1991-12-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                        No. 91-276


 J.L., On Behalf of Himself and               Supreme Court
 Others Similarly Situated
                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Washington Superior Court

                                              December Term, 1991
 Sutherland Miller, et al


 Alan W. Cheever, J.

 Jacquelyn C. Casey, Vermont Legal Aid, Inc., Waterbury, and Eric Avildsen,
   Of Counsel, Vermont Legal Aid, Inc., Burlington, for plaintiffs-appellees

 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Montpelier, and Joseph L. Winn,
   Assistant Attorney General, Waterbury, for defendants-appellants


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson and Dooley, JJ.


      ALLEN, C.J.   Defendants, the Commissioner of the Vermont Department of
 Mental Health and Mental Retardation and the superintendent and various
 staff members of the Vermont State Hospital, appeal from a decision of the
 Washington Superior Court denying a motion for relief from a 1985 consent
 judgment.  The consent decree set forth procedures for the involuntary
 medication of committed patients at the Vermont State Hospital.  On appeal,
 defendants argue that (1) a recent clarification in due process requirements
 renders procedures in the consent decree superfluous, and (2) the continued
 judicial enforcement of the decree violates the separation of powers section
 of the Vermont Constitution.  We affirm.
      The case began in 1984 as a class action filed in Washington Superior
 Court against the Commissioner of Mental Health and Mental Retardation and
 various officials of the Vermont State Hospital (VSH).  The resulting
 consent decree denominated the class as follows:
         All committed patients at VSH who have been or in the
         future will be administered involuntary medication who
         have not voluntarily agreed to such treatment and who
         have not been judicially determined to lack the actual
         capacity to make medical treatment decisions on their
         own behalf and whose refusal to voluntarily accept
         medication has not been overridden by a judge or other
         surrogate decision-maker after notice, hearing, and
         factual record adequate for review.

 The consent decree requires defendants to utilize certain procedures before
 involuntarily medicating committed patients.  Under the decree, a treatment
 team's recommendation for involuntary treatment is first reviewed by the VSH
 medical director in accordance with certain factors.  If the medical dir-
 ector agrees with the team that involuntary treatment is warranted, the
 director must initiate a fair hearing process by filing a detailed applica-
 tion with a Human Services Board hearing officer, who must conduct a
 hearing within ten days.  The hearing officer must determine if the patient
 is competent and, if not competent, decide, within three working days, if
 the patient would consent to treatment if competent.  Appeal then may be
 taken to the Washington Superior Court pursuant to V.R.C.P. 75.
      In November, 1990 the commissioner and the VSH executive director
 filed a motion under V.R.C.P. 60(b)(5) seeking relief from the consent
 decree on grounds that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in
 Washington v. Harper,