Court Opinion

ID: 9411551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 23:03:36.744295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:07.134493
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/26/23 Conservatorship of L.V. CA1/3

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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 THREE

 Conservatorship of the Person of
 L.V.

 PUBLIC GUARDIAN OF CONTRA
 COSTA COUNTY,
                                                                     A166065
           Petitioner and Respondent,
 v.                                                                  (Contra Costa County
                                                                     Super. Ct. No. MSP1501489)
 L.V.,
           Objector and Appellant.

         L.V. appeals an order reappointing a conservator of her person. She
contends the trial court erroneously admitted and relied on inadmissible
hearsay evidence. We shall affirm the order.
                    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      I. Petition and Trial
         The Director of the Contra Costa County Health Services Department
(the County) filed a petition for reappointment of a conservator on February
17, 2022, alleging that L.V. was gravely disabled as a result of a mental
disorder and was unable to provide for her basic personal needs for food,

                                                               1
clothing, and shelter. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 5361, 5362, 5363.)1 L.V.
objected to the reappointment, and a court trial took place on May 31 and
June 2, 2022. There were two witnesses at trial, Dr. Jennifer Weinstein, a
clinical psychologist who testified as an expert on behalf of the County, and
L.V., who testified on her own behalf.
      Over L.V.’s objection, the trial court admitted, as business records,
redacted records from the facility in which L.V. was placed. (Evid. Code,
§ 1271.) The court explained that it had reviewed the records and saw no
examples of hearsay from outside the facility and no diagnoses; however, it
indicated that it would entertain further objections to specific portions of the
records.
   II. Dr. Weinstein’s Testimony
      Dr. Weinstein interviewed L.V. twice, the first time on Zoom on May
24, 2022, a week before trial, and the second time in person on May 31, the
first day of trial.
      Based on her interviews with L.V., her review of L.V.’s records from the
facility where she lived, and a conversation with a “team lead” at the facility,
Dr. Weinstein diagnosed L.V. with schizoaffective disorder, which she
described as a chronic disorder involving both a mood disorder and a
psychotic disorder such as schizophrenia.
      Schizophrenia, Dr. Weinstein testified, involves one or more of three
“positive symptoms” (grossly disorganized speech or behavior, hallucinations,
or delusions), and it also includes “negative” symptoms, such as low
motivation, lack of appropriate emotional expression, lack of appropriate
hygiene, isolation or socially inappropriate behavior, and poor room

      1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and

Institutions Code.

                                         2
cleanliness. The mood disorder portion of schizoaffective disorder may be
manifested in low mood, hopelessness, helplessness, isolation, or bipolar
disorder. Treatments for schizoaffective disorder are psychiatric medication,
a structured program, training in socially appropriate behavior and proper
hygiene, assistance with developing strategies to manage the symptoms, and
group therapy.
      L.V. was currently prescribed an anti-psychotic medication, Clozaril,
and two antidepressant medications, Zoloft and Luvox, all of which are taken
twice a day. She was also prescribed a medicine for agitation, Ativan.
      Interviews with L.V.
      Dr. Weinstein described the interview that took place on May 24, the
week before trial. L.V. told Dr. Weinstein she had been living for nine years
at the facility where she was currently placed. She was placed there because
at her previous placement, which was an unlocked board and care home, she
“fought someone, and didn’t stop.”
      L.V. told Dr. Weinstein she wanted to go to a hospital because she was
hearing voices, and she was experiencing “a pain in her back, and it [was] the
pain of the voices.” L.V. also said she had paranoia. L.V. said she was taking
psychiatric medications and the facility gave her Ativan every morning.
      During the interview, L.V. engaged in “inappropriate laughter,”
laughing suddenly without being able to explain the reason for doing so. She
thought Dr. Weinstein was actually a person named Mariella who was posing
as someone else.2 L.V. looked away and appeared to be responding to
internal stimuli, or “self-talking,” rather than responding to what Dr.
Weinstein said. She appeared confused and had difficulty understanding Dr.

      2 Here and at several other points during Dr. Weinstein’s testimony,

L.V. interjected to dispute statements she made.

                                       3
Weinstein’s questions, and she gave different answers to the same question
during the interview. A few times during the interview she became agitated
and began cursing. She exhibited mood shifts and a lack of emotional
expression.
      Dr. Weinstein asked L.V. about her plans. L.V. first said she wanted to
go to the hospital to treat her psychosis. She later said she would rent an
apartment. Dr. Weinstein asked how she would procure an apartment, and
L.V. said she would borrow her sister’s computer and look for one. She did
not know what she would do if she could not find an apartment immediately.
She said she had no income but had money in Mexico, but she was unable to
provide any details about that money, becoming upset when Dr. Weinstein
asked for more information.
      There came a point during the May 24 interview that L.V. told Dr.
Weinstein she was acting like the police and asking ridiculous and irrelevant
questions, and L.V. did not answer any further questions.
      Dr. Weinstein testified that when she interviewed L.V. on May 31,
2022, the first day of trial, L.V. laughed loudly; when Dr. Weinstein asked
why she was laughing, L.V. said, “ ‘I’m laughing at myself’ ”; when she
continued to laugh and was asked why, L.V. replied, “ ‘I’m talking to myself.
I don’t know what she said,’ ” and then said, “ ‘We—we—we,’ ” which Dr.
Weinstein did not understand.
      At the May 31 interview, Dr. Weinstein asked L.V. about what she
planned to do if the court did not continue the conservatorship. L.V. first said
she would go to her home and go to Mexico. When asked for details about
where she would live and how she would get there, L.V. said, “ ‘I don’t know,
maybe Cancun.’ ” When asked if she had a place to live, she said, “ ‘I don’t
know.’ ” Dr. Weinstein asked if anyone was available to help her, and L.V.

                                       4
relied, “ ‘Nobody helps me or believes me, so I don’t care.’ ” Dr. Weinstein
asked if L.V. could tell her anything more about her plan for taking care of
herself, she replied, “ ‘No’ ” and said she did not know where to get her
medications. Dr. Weinstein asked if L.V. would continue taking her
medications when she left her current facility, she replied, “I don’t know.”
      According to Dr. Weinstein, L.V. had difficulty engaging meaningfully
with her in the May 31 conversation, and she showed no insight into her
psychiatric condition. L.V.’s laughter was unpredictable and inappropriate to
the conversation, and Dr. Weinstein viewed it as an example of socially
inappropriate behavior and responding to internal stimuli. She had no
explanation of L.V.’s meaning when she said, “We—we—we,” and saw it as
an example of disorganized speech and behavior.
      Dr. Weinstein testified that based on her discussions with L.V. about
her medications, she did not expect L.V. to be able to procure medications on
her own. If L.V. stopped taking her medications, Dr. Weinstein would expect
the symptoms of psychosis and depression to return.
      She also testified that L.V.’s outbursts in court and persistence in
interrupting the proceedings showed she had difficulty in controlling her
impulses and understanding expectations for behavior, which can be
symptoms of schizophrenia.
      Testimony Regarding L.V.’s Records
      Dr. Weinstein reviewed and testified about L.V.’s redacted records. On
March 15, 2021, L.V. told her doctor she had a visit with her sister or sisters,
but she could not recall her sister’s name. She then said the sister who visited
was an imposter and her real sister was in prison. According to the notes,
L.V. said on the same date, “ ‘I don’t have a family. My sister will do things
to me,’ ” and she changed the topic abruptly, then said, “ ‘You guys are just

                                       5
killing us here.’ ” These statements, Dr. Weinstein testified, demonstrated
paranoid delusions, a symptom of schizoaffective disorder.
      On February 14, 2022, according to the records, L.V. called the report
writer “Amanda” and alleged she had only worked at the facility for one day.
This statement, Dr. Weinstein testified, demonstrated L.V.’s confusion,
paranoia, and lack of orientation to reality. The paranoid delusion that
others were not who they said they were could make it difficult for a person
to accept help or work with others.
      A note from March 1, 2022 indicated that L.V. had poor personal
hygiene and depended on prompts from staff members. Her room was not
clean, and she left clothing soiled with urine and feces on top of her clean
clothes.3 Poor hygiene is a negative symptom of schizophrenia, and, in light
of the fact that L.V. had a roommate, it was also inappropriate behavior.
And, according to Dr. Weinstein, it demonstrated a lack of ability to follow
basic social norms necessary for living independently.
      The March 1, 2022 note also indicated that L.V. was on medication
watch during February and that twice that month she refused to stay in the
common area when reminded.4 According to Dr. Weinstein, medication
watch means patients must stay in staff’s line of sight for 10 to 15 minutes
after being administered medication; L.V.’s failure to do so indicated she did
not consistently comply with medication rules.
      Also on March 1, 2022, L.V. told staff members that she was at a
psychiatric hospital when she was in Mexico and that the doctor there found
she did not have a mental illness and prescribed only clozapine and Zyprexa;
she said her sisters were the reason she was locked in a psychiatric hospital

      3 The trial court overruled L.V.’s hearsay objection to this evidence.

      4 The trial court overruled L.V.’s objection to this evidence.

                                        6
and she called them “ ‘clowns.’ ” These comments, according to Dr.
Weinstein, revealed L.V.’s confusion about her mental health diagnosis, lack
of insight into her need for psychiatric care, suspiciousness of her providers,
and paranoia toward her family. These symptoms would interfere with her
ability to obtain psychiatric care, food, clothing, and shelter on her own.
      A review covering the period from October through December 2021
indicated that during October L.V. was twice non-compliant with her
medications despite prompts from staff, and on three occasions during
November and December she did not comply with medication watch.5 On
December 11, 2021, a staff member saw L.V. talking and laughing with no
one in close proximity throughout the day, which suggested to Dr. Weinstein
she was responding to internal stimuli and which could indicate her
judgment and ability to care for her own basic needs were impaired.
      On January 6, 2022, staff noticed a pile of soiled clothes on her chair
and mixed with her clean clothes in the dresser. Some of the clothes had
feces on them.6 According to the records, L.V. took a monitored shower on
March 30, 2022, and had to be prompted twice to scrub properly and rinse
her private area. These incidents indicated to Dr. Weinstein L.V.’s need for
assistance with hygiene and daily living.
      Based on her interviews with L.V., her conversation with a staff
member, and L.V.’s records, Dr. Weinstein’s opined that L.V. was presently
gravely disabled.

      5 The trial court overruled L.V.’s objection to this evidence, made on the

ground of multiple levels of hearsay.

      6 The trial court overruled L.V.’s objection, made on grounds of lack of

foundation and hearsay because the notes did not indicate the author of the
note personally saw the clothes.

                                        7
   III.   L.V.’s Testimony
      L.V. testified on her own behalf. If she could leave her current facility,
she would like to go to the board and care home at which she previously lived.
She would have the nurses at the board and care home give her medication
and she would feel better there. There were psychiatrists and social workers
there, she would want the social workers’ guidance, it was a good place, and
she would be grateful to go there. If she could not stay there, she would want
to go to Mexico.7 If she did not have a conservator, she would go to her
sister’s house.
      When asked what she would do if she were on her own rather than at
the board and care home, she said she would wake up, take a shower, have
breakfast, read a book, and take her medications morning and evening. She
thought it would be good to work with a psychiatrist. When asked how she
would pay for food and clothing if she did not have a conservator, she said her
sister would take her to buy food and would bring clothing. She said she
could take care of her own hygiene and keep her room clean even if no one
were telling her to do those things, and she noted she had her own apartment
12 or 13 years ago.
      On cross-examination, L.V. said she had been diagnosed with bipolar
disorder in Mexico and did not believe she had schizophrenia. When asked
about hearing voices, L.V. said her problem started when her brother, who
had schizophrenia, started hearing voices, and L.V. said she “couldn’t
differentiate and I was traumatized.”

      7 On cross-examination, however, when asked whether she recalled

telling Dr. Weinstein she would live in Cancun if the conservatorship ended,
L.V. responded, “I don’t have any money to go to Cancun. I would rather go
to the beach in San Francisco.”

                                        8
IV.   Trial Court’s Ruling
      The trial court found L.V. was currently gravely disabled and
reappointed the conservator. The court maintained her current placement
but ordered a six-month placement status review to consider whether a board
and care home would then meet her needs.
      The order reappointing the conservator expired during the pendency of
this appeal, as L.V. acknowledges, but the County does not argue the case is
moot. Because this appeal raises issues that may recur yet evade review due
to the relatively brief duration of a conservatorship, we consider it on the
merits. (See Conservatorship of Susan T. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1005, 1011, fn. 5;
Conservatorship of George H. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 157, 161, fn. 2.)
                                 DISCUSSION
      L.V. contends her records contained inadmissible hearsay and their
admission prejudiced her.
      In response, the County first argues that L.V. may raise on appeal only
objections she made to specific parts of the records. (See People v. Mattson
(1990) 50 Cal.3d 826, 853–854 [judgment reversed for erroneous admission of
evidence only if specific ground of objection made at trial]; People v. Boyette
(2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 424.) Here, of course, L.V. objected to her records
being admitted in their entirety, and she raised a number of specific
objections during trial on grounds of hearsay and lack of foundation. The
County does not identify any argument L.V. makes on appeal that is not
fairly encompassed within her objections. We will consider her arguments on
the merits.
      The Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (§ 5000 et seq.) authorizes
appointment of a conservator for a person who is “gravely disabled as a result
of a mental health disorder.” (§ 5350.) “ ‘[G]ravely disabled’ ” means “[a]

                                        9
condition in which a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is unable
to provide for his or her basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter.”
(§ 5008, subd. (h).) In determining whether a person is gravely disabled, it is
appropriate to look to “the historical course of the person’s mental disorder,
as determined by available relevant information about the course of a
person’s mental disorder.” (§ 5008.2.)
        Our high court has ruled that when an expert testifies about case-
specific out-of-court statements and treats them as true to support the
expert’s opinion, the statements are hearsay and are inadmissible unless
each level of the hearsay falls within a hearsay exception. (People v. Sanchez
(2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 684 & fn. 11.) This rule applies to conservatorship
proceedings. (Conservatorship of S.A. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 438, 448.) L.V.’s
records were admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay
rule.
        The trial court has broad discretion to determine whether evidence is
admissible under the business records exception. (Conservatorship of S.A.,
supra, 25 Cal.App.5th at p. 447; see Evid. Code, § 1271.) This exception
allows “[e]vidence of a writing made as a record of an act, condition, or event”
if the writing is made in the regular course of a business, at or near the time
of the act, condition, or event; if the custodian or another qualified witness
testifies to its identity and mode of preparation, a requirement that may be
satisfied by affidavit; and if the sources of information and time of
preparation indicate its trustworthiness. (Evid. Code, §§ 1271, 1561; S.A., at
p. 447.) The records need not identify the individual who observed an event
or recorded it. (S.A., at p. 448 [records said “ ‘Per staff’ ”].)
        Under California law, an “act, condition, or event” for purposes of the
business records exception does not encompass conclusions such as diagnoses

                                          10
of psychological conditions. (Evid Code, § 1271; People v. Reyes (1974) 12
Cal.3d 486, 503.) As our high court has explained, “ ‘ “a conclusion is neither
an act, condition or event; it may or may not be based upon conditions, acts or
events observed by the person drawing the conclusion; it may or may not be
founded upon sound reason; the person who has formed the conclusion
recorded may or may not be qualified to form it and testify to it.” ’ ” (Ibid.)
Although a diagnosis of a physical condition such as a compound bone
fracture may be admissible as a record of what the person who made the
diagnosis saw, a psychiatric diagnosis is inadmissible because “it is based
upon the thought process of the psychiatrist expressing the conclusion.”
(Ibid.)
      L.V. contends the records introduced in this case violate these rules in
several respects. Some portions of the records refer to L.V. being paranoid,
and having paranoid delusions or ideations, and making bizarre and
delusional statements. The records also refer to her, at various times, having
a “good” mood or “[g]ood” group attendance, her personal hygiene and room
care having “deteriorated” or being “poor,” and her group participation being
“[p]oor.” They also refer to her having a “dysphoric and blunted” affect,
having “chronically limited” judgment and insight, and having a “general
attitude of indifference” toward her treatment. These statements, L.V.
argues, are opinions rather than simple recitations of facts or conditions. She
argues they thus do not fall within the scope of the business records exception
and are inadmissible hearsay.
      Some of the incidents related in the records are discussed in the
portions of standard forms with headings for “Treatment Area[s]” that
included “Positive Symptoms (to include delusions/hallucinations)”;
“Oppositional/Defiant Behavior”; “Socially Inappropriate Behavior”; and

                                        11
“Medication Non-Compliance.” These headings, L.V. argues, are improper
expressions of opinion.
      L.V. also argues that some of the incidents described in the records did
not appear to take place at or near the time they were recorded and may not
reflect observations by a person with the duty to report them accurately; for
instance, some were found in quarterly reports summarizing L.V.’s behavior
over the course of three months or refer to statements that L.V. made bizarre
statements to “others, staff and residents.” L.V. makes other challenges to
the evidence on this ground: a psychiatric progress note stated that L.V.’s
judgment was “chronically limited but ha[d] improved since her admission,”
and that her judgment about her disruptive behavior had improved. The
records also refer to L.V.’s “[g]oal[s]” without indicating whether these are
goals she has set for herself or that have been set for her. All of these
portions of her records, L.V. argues, should have been redacted because they
did not reflect acts, conditions, or events, or they were too remote in time to
qualify for the business record exception.
      We see no grounds to reverse on this basis. First, the business records
exception applies to “ ‘observed conduct,’ ” a category that is broad enough to
allow evidence of such things as “threatening and aggressive” behavior.
(Conservatorship of S.A., supra, 25 Cal.App.5th at pp. 443, 448.) Here, the
trial court could properly treat references to such things as “paranoia,”
inappropriate or defiant behavior, and “poor” hygiene or group participation
as observations of L.V.’s conduct. And the sworn declaration accompanying
S.A.’s records averred that the records were prepared by personnel at the
facility, “either by hand or electronic input, in the ordinary course of business
at or near the time of the act, condition, or event described in the records.”
(See S.A., at pp. 447–448.)

                                       12
      In any case, even assuming some of the material was inadmissible
hearsay, we apply the state law standard for prejudice to this question,
reversing only if it is reasonably probable L.V. would have obtained a more
favorable result absent the error. (Conservatorship of K.W. (2017) 13
Cal.App.5th 1274, 1286; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.) Under
this—or indeed any—standard, there was no prejudice.
      We begin with the references to L.V.’s paranoia or delusions. Whether
or not they constitute conclusions rather than evidence of acts, conditions, or
events (Evid. Code, § 1271), the record is replete with—and the references to
paranoia in L.V.’s records are generally accompanied by—concrete examples
of her behavior. For instance, a reference to L.V.’s “paranoid ideations
related to the idea of being discharged” is immediately followed with a
description of L.V. saying that “ ‘you guys just keep us here forever to take
my money.’ ” An evaluator said L.V. “voice[d] some delusional content today,”
and immediately supported this statement by saying L.V. “addresses myself
by a different name and states I have only been working here for one day.” A
medical progress note said L.V. had “talked about various paranoid delusions
regarding her sisters being kidnapped,” and immediately explained L.V. said
“ ‘they’ ” had kidnapped her sisters and would kill L.V. Other portions of the
records explained that L.V. displayed paranoia by refusing to sign reports
and accusing staff of using her for her money, or that she made a delusional
statement when she said that the doctor was not actually the doctor but
someone else called Amanda.
      Concrete examples similarly provide independent confirmation of the
records’ more general references to L.V.’s personal and room hygiene being
poor. Reference to her hygiene being “ ‘poor’ ” are supported by statements
that she required staff prompts to shower and needed financial incentives to

                                       13
take a shower, that she used toothpaste to wash her private area, that her
bed often lacked linens, that she was bladder incontinent on numerous
occasions, and that she left clothing soiled with urine and feces on top of her
clean clothes.
      As to the opinions Dr. Weinstein expressed, they were largely based on
the effect of L.V.’s own actions and statements rather than on any statements
in the records that L.V. challenges as inadmissible conclusions. For instance,
Dr. Weinstein testified that L.V.’s statements that she was being kept in the
facility for her money, that her sister was an imposter, and that her sisters
were the reason she was locked in a psychiatric hospital were examples of
paranoid delusions, a symptom of schizoaffective disorder. L.V.’s statement
that a report writer had worked at the facility for only one day and was
actually someone called Amanda was delusional and symptomatic of
schizoaffective disorder. The opinion Dr. Weinstein expressed about L.V.’s
difficulty following rules and regulations regarding medication was based on
L.V.’s action in leaving the common area early while she was on medication
watch.
      Moreover, there is ample unchallenged evidence to support Dr.
Weinstein’s opinion, in the form not only of her direct observations during her
interviews with L.V. but also of evidence in L.V.’s records, including hand-
written notes indicating L.V. talked and laughed with no one in particular as
if responding to internal stimuli; that she had soiled and clean clothes mixed
together in her room; and that she had to be prompted to wash herself during
a monitored shower.
      In short, the portions of the records that L.V. contends are inadmissible
pale in comparison to the ample unchallenged evidence that supports Dr.
Weinstein’s conclusion that L.V. is gravely disabled. There is no basis to

                                       14
conclude either she or the trial court would have reached any other
conclusion if the challenged statements had been redacted.
                                    DISPOSITION
         The order is affirmed.

                                             TUCHER, P.J.

WE CONCUR:

FUJISAKI, J.
PETROU, J.

Conservatorship of L.V. (A166065)

                                        15