Court Opinion

ID: 9875428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 22:33:46.589806+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:00.950241
License: Public Domain

Kapsner, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 19] I respectfully dissent.
[¶20] Respondent’s counsel specifically moved for a “directed verdict” under the statute that sets out the certification requirements for involuntary treatment with medication. I agree with the majority that despite the inartful articulation, this really was a motion to dismiss because the petitioner had failed to meet its burden.
[¶ 21] Where I disagree with the majority is with the analysis that F.M.G. was asserting that it is necessary to have both the treating psychiatrist and a licensed physician not involved in the case of F.M.G. testify at the hearing. We have clearly said this is unnecessary. Interest of B.D., 510 N.W.2d 629, 633 (N.D. 1994). Rather, the argument of F.M.G. is that the State has failed to cure the deficiencies of its petition which it could have done by *857calling a licensed physician not involved in the diagnosis or treatment of F.M.G.
Judge, he’s only called one witness and he’s rested, he can’t call any other witnesses. He’s failed to meet the requisite of the statute.
[¶ 22] Section 25-03.1-18.1(1)(a), N.D.C.C., is clear. A treating and a non-treating physician or psychiatrist shall certify to the four elements laid out in the statute. It is unreasonable to fly-speck the transcript looking for the word “certify” when counsel has referred to the specific section that sets out the certification requirements, begins to discuss those requirements, and then has that discussion cut off by the court.
[¶23] Until the State rested, it would have been possible to meet the requirements of N.D.C.C. § 25-03.1-18.1(1)(a) by calling a non-treating physician. On the state of this record, we do not have the statutory requirement that a non-treating physician certify that F.M.G. was offered treatment and refused it or that F.M.G. lacks the capacity to make or communicate a responsible decision about that treatment. See Interest of B.L.S., 2006 ND 218, ¶ 26, 723 N.W.2d 395.
[IT 24] Section 25-03.1-18.1(1)(a), N.D.C.C., is a statutory prerequisite to issuing an order to involuntarily treat with medication, N.D.C.C. § 25-03.1-18.1(3). It has .not been complied with. I would reverse the treatment order.
[¶ 25] Carol Ronning Kapsner
Jerod E. Tufte