asked him if he would take certain medications she had already prescribed to him what she called a large fleet medications  but when they started discussing other medications she offered some medications to him we're not really sure why she got there at that time but  at any rate he refused to take them and as a result of that then she filed a petition that was he factor horsemen have been assigned to treat mr d but it doesn't seem like she really spent much time with him or that she really  try to resolve the empath that they had reached in their relationship and so i think we need to look at mr g and how he came to that  the code had to be proved by clear and convincing evidence and at the heart of this case he said nuts is that he had capacity to make that decision to capable of repetition exception would be that he would be could be subjected to the same action again and even two to meet all but to meet that only that part of the statute but also everything else that comes with it to one of the seven point one it's a very complicated  oh it's more than just an evidentiary issue i think it's it's also they're sick component of statutory compliance and i think that's what well i think i think alfred h h defines the current current state of yes and when the exceptions apply lateral consequences that that exception could apply because even after he left my darling he remained adamant about their impasse that he had a ph d she refused to listen and she refused to get them past that treatment you know maybe the diagnosis didn't matter as much as the course of treatment and he tried to land the course of treatment regardless of what she called it and she just flat out refused so i someone's been in the hospital i think if they have experience with medications i don't think that defeats an exception  what if he if she wouldn't listen to him say she had grabbed this chart and in there it stated he had a life line and he said that at the hearing he had a lifelong struggle d he had taken some of the medications he had side effects that were significant and that affected him and he still was affected so that was why why he he refused the medications now but back to five he didn't have capacity mainly because he disagreed with her about the diagnosis and secondly she just said he just doesn't understand the medications but if you look at the records he had the written a formation about medications he had studied them and i think what you say asking the court to do is is travel back to plan and grace came out and and granted today there's many more medications i mean you can some arguments for accept it some are rejected still the court at that time recognized the individuals have a liberty interest and refusing medications these very serious medications and the court went into a long commentary about how truly serious these medications are and cited the side effects that mr di himself was very concerned with these medications and others throughout his life and he truly was concerned about the side effects and i think that he made them and for him to session it wasn't just that the factor was requesting them and he was going to refuse for no reason i think he truly understood the medications i think he made a recent and form the surgeon to refuse him and she just would work with him he even made a proposal for adderall which would have dealt with his a d h and the doctors said at that time she considered him his case on june thirtieth that oh and one day i think it was the second anyway the extent of what think also that the state failed in and complying with that particular provision of a two dash one of seven point one and also  i think if i might trace back to the capacity issue for just a moment i think the main road ma just not issue any ans unless those opinions are likely to have some consequence on the resulting judgment in this instance judge has already been followed through and there's no way that any decision of this court now would have any effect on the order to involuntary leave it or treat this patient drugs in response to that responded has raised exceptions to the stockroom two of them the first being capable that test is why this is important for today and that is that there must be a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subject to the same action again that's a quote from the supreme court  and the key language in that quotation is the definition of the term same action this court actually obtained effort h h or was taken up by the supreme court accurately i think defined term same action and discourse definition of that term was adopted by the supreme court shrink or twice i didn't buy what it means by the term same action is that the action must have a substantial enough relation that the resolution of the issue in the present case would be likely to affect the future case involving response now in alfred h h the issue was involuntary commitment again the question was or was a factual one or not the factual elements met the burden of proof would have no bearing on a similar action of the bond terry committed because the facts would be different you would not be allowed the earlier determination be relevant to a future determination of whether or not a valid terry commitment was met at that future action a little complicated but the same issue applies here and whether or not they change they didn't resolve that question because they determined that regardless of whether collateral consequences could be assumed or whether they had to be proven by the  party they didn't exist in that case because responded had previously been voluntary on several occasions plus he had been convicted of a felony and sentenced to a term president so the court determined well whatever collateral consequences could possibly be established associated with this involuntary commitment judgment would be moot because i mean that they could attach because of his previous history previous incarcerations and in previous interest judge but i don't think that was the criteria that the court moves into determining whether to infer collateral consequences from a criminal judgment if it's clear well i think well you know we just found it wasn't right it wasn't an issue that was before them actually i think they could have offered at least picked on the subject they determined that because the facts of that case clearly demonstrate the collateral consequences did not exist that further inquiry by them was unnecessary so they reserved that determination and specifically identified that problem and determined that they were not going to address it because the facts did not require them to do so but now i know so it's important in the sense that they could identify that  i don't know what more though that decision can add clarify that in a criminal case collateral consequences would attach because of the stigmatism that's associated with a criminal conviction i don't think that same stigmatism attaches to a involuntary commitment proceeding or a order ordering involuntary ministration drugs i mean to try to await a diagnosis of the illness with a conviction for a felony i think or an opposite a felony obviously it's result of bad decisions bad behavior bad character on the part of that offended were as a diagnosis of an illness is simply a medical condition this is go different than an individual that suffers from any other physically ill that that's not something that they choose it's not something that's that they have elected to do there's they're suffering with something that's beyond their ability control be similar to a doctor diagnosing somebody with a heart condition and as a result of that organisation the person loses or driver's license if they become a danger to others yes then that condition i think should be considered and i guess where i'm going with this is the supreme court did determine the collateral consequences of quite a health series and i think that i don't fully appreciate that or understand that the court suggested that if a responded successfully attacked a judgment of involuntary commitment that perhaps it literally could be one where in prior hospitalization state would be inadmissible but why is a prior hospitalization state of concern to a future machine at all in this instance this gentleman had the record suggests he had been treated for mental illness in the as to whether they were force whether the medications were forced or the treatment was as result of involuntary commitment the question wasn't asked fortunately and i think it's important why the question wasn't asked because no one at that proceeding but that question was rolling and i don't to day believe that question to be relevant because i don't think that previous proceedings educations on those issues have any relation or bearing on the court's determination establish that at one time he responded did suffer from a mental condition but actually responded never admitted to being forced to take such a troop medications previously subject to an order of involuntary medication have previously been voluntary only committed and then follow up with some suggestion as to how a similar or how this that don't i don't really see it as as a cover lateral consequence of course you understand even if we agree with you there is nothing we can do about yes and no i mean what we could do is we time understanding where the court's going with that but accepting the court's concerned that that's a legitimate collateral consequence i think we need to get these facts in rocker instead of guessing as to what intentional collateral consequences could exist and how that adjudication could possibly affect this responded in the future you see yours how do you think that could ever be placed into the where other than just argument  don't find her house was ations at all relevant to future determinations of this issue but if they are going if they responded there's going to be arguing that he or she is suffering a collateral consequences  result of this i think they should be required to suggest what that might be even if it's only through argument it's at least because the state the opportunity to address you are an adult to that exception you are the moving party and i don't believe that there's any negative stigmatism that attaches to this type of determination that it all is some alert to a criminal conviction haven't satisfied our earth hoof on issues of competency and danger or danger to themselves or to others and clearly we we would argue guy for manic state is only relevant because in that state she couldn't diagnose whether or not he actually did suffer from h g h a d h but regardless of whether the guy suffered from attention deficit disorder  she clearly believed that he was suffering from a mental illness that required a totally different medication the stimulant that he wanted for ph d a d h d would be counter intuitive counterproductive to what he was suffering with so you know it's a classic bird to prove who you going to believe there is no defended or response rather then suggested he had taken medication for attention deficit disorder to pass but he never suggested a doctor treatment for it and he responded himself testified that in the past when taking medication for attention deficit disorder he acted bizarre excepted by over two stones a cemetery so there's more than sufficient evidence of a record to support the state's conclusion that this gentleman suffered from a bill condition and they require medication and lack of passage to ever stand his illness and the reasons why the medication should be given fact every petition desk get a different court now first so i think that's significant when you think about this whole yes argument and also all  the thousand plus petitions that are filed parents saying i'm a county i think that's really self evident how each case individually significant and also i think these sisters need to be reviewed within the framework in the mental health code as far as i know the only proceedings in which the burden of proof on shifts to the state for the rest of the case to decide whether and he should be discharged there's no no requirement for or any any at issue and goes beyond that to more or less presume that in every proceeding the facts will be different which i don't know how it could be otherwise  s as far collateral consequences go to were i think maybe one confusing thought in this case is that of emergency medications which the doctor described as force if an emergency occurrence medications can be forced in that instance but that i don't think is what alfred h h s is talking about i think what that case is talking about is force medication orders and keep in mind that alfred h h had many appeals some successful some and also he was a convicted felon also there may be many collateral consequences that are not asked for a record that this court or any court would ever know about and one of those would be the right to bear