Court Opinion

ID: 9717863
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:11:46.900235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:55.878005
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree the court in Williams II held that a respondent is entitled to examination by an impartial examiner and also agree with the majority here that the statute applies to discharge hearings. I disagree with the proposition that the examiner cannot be employed by the State. Section 3 — 804 provides two methods for independent examination. First, the respondent may secure the examiner of his choice, and second, if respondent is unable to obtain an examination, she may request that the court order an examination by an impartial medical expert. Where the appointment is by order of the court, the only requirement is that the examiner be qualified and impartial. Whether the examiner has some connection or employment with the State is not a prohibition for appointment. An examiner in such circumstances can be qualified, independent, and impartial. It is for the trial court to make this determination and, unless the evidence shows the examiner is unqualified, not independent, or not impartial, the requirements of section 3 — 804 have been satisfied. In Williams II, the trial court denied respondent’s request for an independent psychiatric examination. I do not read Williams II to require the examiner not to have any connection with the State. As pointed out in Barnard: " 'Dr. Cuneo is not a partisan of the State, though his fee was paid by the State, any more than assigned counsel for the defense is beholden to the prosecution merely because he is compensated by the State. Each is given a purely professional job to do — counsel to represent the defendant to the best of his ability, the psychologist impartially to examine into and report upon the mental condition of the respondent.’ ” Barnard, 247 Ill. App. 3d at 247, 616 N.E.2d at 724. In Barnard, the trial court did appoint an examiner, albeit he was employed by the Department. I agree with the Pates and Barnard decisions. Examiners appointed pursuant to the statute are professional people, not advocates. A respondent who does not secure the examiner of choice is only entitled to examination by an impartial medical expert. I do agree the petition should be dismissed as moot.