Court Opinion

ID: 9704286
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:29:45.407411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:59.698478
License: Public Domain

BECK, J.,
concurring:
¶ 11 concur in the result reached by the majority, but write separately to state that the failure of the appellee to offer the testimony of a professional with a medical degree is not always fatal to the case.
¶ 2 From my reading of the record, it does not appear that appellant was challenging his mental illness diagnosis or the psychiatrists, current or former, who made the diagnosis. Instead, appellant’s opposition to his continued involuntary commitment was based on a claim that his recovery could progress with means less restrictive than those of an inpatient program.
¶ 8 The court began the hearing in this case by noting that it had reviewed the certification in the file. Thereafter, as the statute provides, the court welcomed evidence from the parties. The witness at issue here, Ms. Buckwalter, testified in her capacity as the program director for the long-term structured residence at which appellant resided, as well as a member of the interdisciplinary treatment team assigned to appellant’s case. That team included mental health professionals other than Ms. Buckwalter, such as the facility’s psychiatrist, an intensive case manager and appellant’s therapist.
¶ 4 Among other things, Ms. Buckwalter told the court that appellant had a “mental illness diagnosis” and, when he came to her facility, he had a history of prior hospitalizations and failed to take medication prescribed for his illness. She relayed to the court a conversation she had with appellant wherein he told her that “he felt so good, ... he did not need the medication any longer.” Ms. Buckwalter’s testimony regarding appellant’s mental illness was limited to this rather brief exchange. While I agree with the majority that such testimony is insufficient for a de novo review of the case, I do not agree that the court was precluded from relying on Ms. Buckwalter’s testimony regarding appellant’s previous and ongoing mental illness diagnosis and her first-hand knowledge of his refusal to follow his prescribed medical treatment plan. Nor do I believe that Ms. Buckwalter’s testimony alone, had it been more fully explored, would be insufficient as a matter of law.
¶ 5 In my opinion, each case must be considered on its particular facts and in light of the errors asserted by the person who has been involuntarily committed. Here, the error was not necessarily the absence of a medical doctor’s testimony,6 but instead, the absence of a full and thorough presentation of the facts and circumstances surrounding appellant’s commitment and treatment.
¶ 6 Because appellant was not accorded a full “new hearing,” the conclusions reached by the trial court cannot be sustained.

. In the mental health field, it is accepted and recognized that fully trained and licensed professionals other than medical doctors are qualified to diagnose and treat mental illness.