Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-806_2dp3.pdf
Page Number: 7

Cite as:  599 U. S. ____ (2023) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

Mr. Talevski could talk, feed himself, walk, socialize, and 
recognize  his  family.  Later  in  2016,  however,  Mr.  Talev-
ski’s condition suddenly deteriorated.  He became unable to 
eat on his own and began losing the ability to communicate
in  English  (leaving  him  to  rely  primarily  on  Macedonian, 
his native language).

VCR staff claimed this was dementia’s natural progres-
sion.  But Mr. Talevski’s daughter suspected, and then con-
firmed  with  outside  physicians,  that  VCR  was  chemically 
restraining  Mr.  Talevski  with  six  powerful  psychotropic
medications.  With the help of an outside neurologist, his 
medication was tapered down, and he began to regain the 
ability to feed himself.  Around this time, the Indiana State 
Department of Health (Department) conducted its periodic 
inspection  of  VCR,  and  the  Talevskis  filed  a  formal  com-
plaint  with  the  inspectors  regarding  the  chemical  re-
straints. 

The problems did not end there.  Toward the end of 2016, 
VCR began asserting that Mr. Talevski was harassing fe-
male residents and staff.  Based on that claim, VCR began
sending Mr. Talevski to a psychiatric hospital 90 minutes
away for several days at a time.  VCR readmitted Mr. Talev-
ski the first two times it sent him away.  But the third time, 
instead of accepting him back, VCR tried to force his per-
manent transfer to a dementia facility in Indianapolis.  It 
executed these changed circumstances without first notify-
ing Mr. Talevski or his family.

The Talevskis filed a complaint with the Department re-
garding Mr. Talevski’s forced transfer.  While the complaint
was  pending,  Mr.  Talevski  had  to  stay  at  another  facility 
that was 90 minutes away from his family.  Eventually, a 
Department  administrative  law  judge  nullified  VCR’s  at-
tempted transfer of Mr. Talevski.  Based on that determi-
nation, the Talevskis endeavored to have Mr. Talevski re-
turned to VCR.  But VCR ignored the judge’s decision and
refused readmission.