Court Opinion

ID: 9928024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-30 18:03:39.393193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:46:28.075139
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/30/24 Conservatorship of the Person of Linda M. CA1/5
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or
ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

          IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                  DIVISION FIVE

 Conservatorship of the Person of
 LINDA M.

 PUBLIC GUARDIAN OF CONTRA
 COSTA COUNTY, as Conservator,
 etc.,                                                                   A166105
           Petitioner and Respondent,
 v.                                                                      (Contra Costa County
 LINDA M.,                                                               Super. Ct. Nos.
                                                                           MSP21-01104, MSP22-00247)
           Objector and Appellant.

                                       MEMORANDUM OPINION
         Linda M. appeals from an order granting the petition of the Public
Guardian of Contra Costa County (Public Guardian) to establish a
conservatorship for a one-year period after a jury found her gravely disabled
within the meaning of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (the Act) (Welf. &
Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.)1 Linda challenges this order on the grounds that
the trial court erred in admitting her medical records under the general

         1 Unless otherwise stated, all statutory citations herein are to the

Welfare and Institutions Code.

                                                               1
business records exception to the hearsay rule.2 Linda reasons that the use
of medical records at a jury trial pursuant to the Act contravenes section
5354, which she insists is controlling and supersedes the business records
exception.3
      As a threshold matter, we conclude this appeal is moot given that
Linda’s conservatorship terminated by operation of law in June 2023. “ ‘[A]n
action that involves only abstract or academic questions of law cannot be
maintained. [Citation.] And an action that originally was based on a
justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all the questions
have become moot by subsequent acts or events.’ (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure
(5th ed. 2008) Appeal, § 749, p. 814; [citation].) If the issues on appeal are
rendered moot, a reversal would be without practical effect, and the appeal

      2 We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to

California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. We decline to
recite the full factual and procedural background of this case for purposes of
this opinion because the opinion is unpublished and the parties know or
should know the case’s underlying facts and procedural history. (People v.
Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851 [unpublished opinion that simply
reviews the correctness of the lower court decision “does not merit extensive
factual or legal statement”].)
      3 Section 5354, subdivision (a) lays out the duties of the investigating

officer in a conservatorship case, which include preparing “a written report of
investigation prior to the hearing.” The provision further provides, in
relevant part: “The report to the court shall be comprehensive and shall
contain all relevant aspects of the person’s medical, psychological, financial,
family, vocational, and social condition, and information obtained from the
person’s family members, close friends, social worker, or principal
therapist. . . . The facilities providing intensive treatment or comprehensive
evaluation shall disclose any records or information that may facilitate the
investigation. . . . The court may receive the report in evidence and may read
and consider the contents thereof in rendering its judgment.”

                                        2
will be dismissed.” (Building a Better Redondo, Inc. v. City of Redondo Beach
(2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 852, 866.)
      Further, even were we to exercise our discretion to nonetheless
consider her appeal, there are other fundamental problems that render
consideration of its merits unnecessary.
      First, as the Public Guardian notes, Linda did not argue below that
medical records are inadmissible hearsay in conservatorship cases as a
matter of law pursuant to section 5354. Instead, Linda raised hearsay
objections to particular statements in her medical records, many of which the
court sustained, and the court made necessary redactions before admitting
the records at trial. Under these circumstances, we conclude her new
argument, which hinges on a previously unraised statutory interpretation
question, is forfeited. (People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 424 [while
defendant objected to photographic evidence on state law grounds, to “the
extent defendant argues that admission of the photographic evidence violated
his federal constitutional rights . . . we find those issues were not preserved
for appeal because defendant did not object at trial on those specific
grounds”].) “ ‘Specificity is required both to enable the court to make an
informed ruling on the motion or objection and to enable the party proffering
the evidence to cure the defect in the evidence.’ ” (Ibid.)
      Second, even accepting for the sake of argument Linda’s claim that
section 5354 bars admission of medical records, there still would be no basis
for reversal. There is a wealth of other evidence in the record supporting the
jury’s finding that she was gravely disabled due to a mental disorder. (See
§ 5008, subd. (h)(1)(A) [a person is “gravely disabled” if, as a result of a
mental disorder, the person “is unable to provide for their basic personal
needs for food, clothing, [or] shelter”].)

                                             3
      Specifically, testimony from Linda’s psychiatrist and her husband
established she was gravely disabled as a result of suffering from a
schizoaffective disorder. Dr. Michael Levin, who evaluated Linda in
February and June of 2022, testified that she displayed grandiose and
delusional thoughts, including believing that she was the richest woman in
the world and that two United States Supreme Court justices were in the
jury pool. Dr. Levin opined that Linda lacked insight into her condition. In
particular, Linda knew she was prescribed a monthly injection of Haldol but
did not believe she needed it. Linda told Dr. Levin that she would stop
taking her medication if she were not conserved. According to Dr. Levin, this
would cause her symptoms of schizoaffective disorder to worsen. He
described Linda as minimally responsive to treatment with a limited and
impaired ability to function in a normal fashion.
      Linda’s husband, in turn, testified that Linda went to live with him
after her most recent conservatorship ended. During this time, she engaged
in unsafe behavior that included burning food while cooking and burning
important paperwork and checks in the fireplace. Linda frequently talked to
voices that she heard in her head. Once, during an altercation, Linda shoved
her husband to the ground, causing him to break a rib. He called the police
because he lacked the strength to control her. Linda’s husband suffered from
several health conditions that made it difficult for him to take care of Linda’s
needs.
      Given this evidence of her grave disability, Linda’s challenge to the
now expired conservatorship would fail even if it were ripe, which it is not.
Accordingly, we dismiss her appeal.

                                       4
                                     DISPOSITION
       The appeal is dismissed.

                                                  Jackson, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

Simons, J.
Chou, J.

A166105/Public Guardian of Contra Costa County v. Linda M.

                                              5