Winnebago County v. D.P., 2024AP2391-FT, 3/19/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In appeal eerily similar to a SCOW case that was dismissed as improvidently granted, COA affirms and holds that the conclusory testimony supporting involuntary medication and recommitment was legally sufficient.
“Daniel” appeals orders for recommitment under the Fifth Standard and involuntary medication. (¶1). He argues that the County did not “establish it reasonably explained the disadvantages of his medications to him and thus did not introduce sufficient evidence to support recommitment and involuntary medication.” (Id.).
For those readers less well-versed in the substance of Chapter 51, recall that the “Fifth Standard” under § 51.20(1)(a)2.e. is unique as it folds the requirements for incompetency to refuse medication into the substantive dangerousness criterion.
Daniel focuses on the broad language used by SCOW in its Melanie L. decision to argue that the doctor’s explanation of side effects was categorically insufficient. (¶6). He relies on the informed consent forms published by the Wisconsin Department of Health Services as listing a number of side effects that went undiscussed. (Id.).
COA makes short work of these arguments. First, it holds there is “no merit” to claiming Daniel’s doctor was required to “discuss every possible side effect identified by DHS or any other organization.” (¶8). Second, it infers, from a report which stated the doctor explained certain side effects “amongst other[s]”, that the side effects described in testimony were not the only side effects discussed. (Id.). Finally, it sets aside Daniel’s reliance on Melanie L. by citing SCOW’s decision in Christopher S., which it reads as approving even conclusory testimony with respect to the reasonable explanation requirement. (¶10).
To say Daniel has a decent PFR is a bit of an understatement. In 2023, SCOW accepted a petition straightforwardly highlighting the obvious inconsistency between its decisions in Melanie L. and Christopher S. For reasons that are unclear, however, the petition was then dismissed as improvidently granted after oral argument. (Questions about the weight to be placed on a doctor’s report not moved into evidence at the final hearing may have motivated that order, based on the oral argument.) In a concurrence to that order, however, Justice Dallet agreed that Wisconsinites would benefit from a decision clarifying the interplay between these two cases–seemingly inviting a future petition on the issue.
In addition, we are also intrigued by Daniel’s reliance on the DHS forms, an issue that has come up in two other recent Chapter 51 appeals. That issue appears recurrent and therefore potentially ripe for review as well.
