Brown County v. R.J.M., 2024AP206, 5/7/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite the doctor’s imprecise and generic testimony, COA holds that admission of his report resolves any deficiencies in the record and affirms.
This appeal of recommitment and involuntary medication orders presents three common issues, all of which are resolved with reference to the contents of a report admitted into evidence at the final hearing.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
“Richard” argues that the County failed to prove two aspects of its case: (1) that he was a proper subject for treatment and (2) that he was dangerous. (¶1). As to his treatability, COA agrees that the testimony of Dr. Bales was “somewhat vague and generalized, particularly regarding Richard’s treatability.” (¶15). However, his report adequately communicated that “Richard’s disorder and his symptoms are controllable with medication or treatment and that Richard’s symptoms worsen when he stops taking his medication.” (¶16). As to dangerousness, COA agrees that this testimony “was also somewhat vague and generalized.” (¶17). However,the report adequately describes a number of concerning incidents which support a finding of dangerousness under § 51.20(1)(a)2.c., including evidence that Richard admitted to thinking about slitting the throat of his case manager and “felt the need to break his own wrist to prevent himself from killing a psychiatrist.” (Id.).
Sufficiency of Findings by Circuit Court
COA holds that while this is a “close case” and the court’s findings are “scarce,” the findings are nonetheless minimally sufficient under D.J.W. (¶21). Thus, “while the circuit court’s decision could have been more robust, the concerns underlying our supreme court’s decision in D.J.W. are not present.” (¶24). The parties have not evinced any confusion on appeal as to what dangerousness standard is at issue and Richard has not been frustrated in his ability to adequately argue his sufficiency challenge by the court’s otherwise scant record. (Id.). Moreover, the court did identify specific dangerous acts and, while it could have said more, it said enough. (¶25).
Medication Order
As to whether Richard received an adequate explanation of the advantages, disadvantages or alternatives, COA once again faults Dr. Bales for not testifying with more precision. (¶28). However, his report bridges any gap. (Id.). And, while Bales was likewise imprecise in explaining why Richard was incompetent–and in fact, COA finds his lack of precision “concerning”–the report which was admitted into evidence also rescues the otherwise deficient record. (¶30).
