Ozaukee County D.H.S. v. M.A.G., 2023AP681, 11/29/23, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
M.A.G. challenged the extension of her Chapter 51 commitment and the order finding her incompetent to refuse medication. The court of appeals affirms both orders after concluding that the county presented sufficient evidence of dangerousness under the the third standard and sufficient evidence that she is not competent to refuse medication.
We’ll start with M.A.G.’s challenge to the medication order as it presents somewhat novel issues: (1) whether a physician must testify at the hearing on the medication order; (2) whether the evaluation regarding competency to refuse medication was untimely and lacked specificity; and (3) whether the circuit court applied the correct legal standard. Op., ¶32.
As to the first issue, while M.A.G. framed the issue as sufficiency of the evidence, the court of appeals sees it as an issue of statutory interpretation. Before doing so, however, the court faults M.A.G. for failing to object to a nurse’s testimony in the circuit court and for failing to raise the issue of statutory interpretation in the circuit court.
The court then quotes Wis. Stat. § 51.61(1)(g)3., which states, “[a] report, if any, on which the motion is based shall accompany the motion and notice of motions shall incluse a statement signed by a licensed physician that asserts that the individual needs medication or trreatment and that the individual is not competent to refuse medication or treatment, based on an examination of the individual by a licensed physician.” From this, the court questions both whether the statute addresses hearing testimony at all, since the focus is on a report, “if any,” and also whether the statute mandates a report at all. Op., ¶36. Regardless, the court finds no problem with the fact that a nurse and not a physician testified at M.A.G.’s extension hearing in support of the county’s requested medication order.
Second, M.A.G. argued that medication order was invalid because the nurse’s most recent medication discussion with M.A.G. was four months prior to the extension hearing. The court again sees no problem with the medication order being based on a four-month old medication discussion. The court further rejects M.A.G.’s claims that the evidence regarding her inability to apply an understanding of the advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives to medication lacked specificity.
Third, M.A.G. raised a Melanie L. based challenge because the court found that M.A.G. lacked the ability to take that understanding and process that…in a positive manner that allows [her] to benefit from that.” Op., ¶43. The court rejects the argument, however, and agrees with the county that M.A.G. “has incorrectly interpreted the circuit court’s comments.” According to the court, the circuit court correctly considered whether M.A.G. was able to apply an understanding of the medication to her own mental illness.
