|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED June 3, 2015 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing.� If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports.� A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals.� See Wis. Stat. � 808.10 and Rule 809.62.� |
|
����������� APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Kenosha County:� chad g. kerkman, Judge.� Affirmed.�
�1������� REILLY, J.[1] James H. appeals the extension of his involuntary mental health commitment, arguing that Kenosha County did not show that he is dangerous or would become dangerous if treatment were withdrawn.� We affirm.
�2������� James has been diagnosed with chronic paranoid schizophrenia.� James has been hospitalized multiple times in the last several decades; at one point, he was admitted to the Mendota Mental Health Institute after threatening people at a movie theater.� He has been committed since 2009, when he attacked other residents at his nursing home during a time when he was refusing medication.� The County petitioned for an extension of James�s commitment in May 2014.�
�3������� James�s treating psychiatrist was the only witness to testify at the extension hearing.� In addition to testifying that James has a mental illness and is a proper subject for treatment, the psychiatrist testified that James�s �history of noncompliance� with taking his medication and �episodes of agitation and behavior� caused him to believe that James poses �a substantial probability of physical harm to others if untreated.�� If treatment were withdrawn, according to the psychiatrist, James would be �a definite candidate for treatment.� And without commitment he�s not going to take his medications.�� At numerous times over the years, including within the year prior to the extension hearing, James�s condition has deteriorated as a result of his refusal to take court-ordered medication to the point where James had to be taken to the hospital for treatment.�
�4������� The court ordered that James�s commitment be extended for another year.� James appeals.�
�5������� We apply two standards of review to a circuit court�s commitment decision:� We uphold the court�s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but we independently review whether those facts meet the statutory requirements.� K.N.K. v. Buhler, 139 Wis. 2d 190, 198, 407 N.W.2d 281 (Ct. App. 1987).
�6������� The extension of an involuntary mental health commitment under Wis. Stat. � 51.20 requires the circuit court to find clear and convincing evidence that the individual is mentally ill and is a proper subject for treatment and that �there is a substantial likelihood, based on the subject individual�s treatment record, that the individual would be a proper subject for commitment if treatment were withdrawn.�� Sec. 51.20(1)(a)1., (1)(am).� An individual is a proper subject for commitment if he or she evidences a substantial probability of physical harm to others.� See � 51.20(1)(a)2.b.�
�7������� On appeal, James does not challenge the court�s findings that he is mentally ill and a proper subject for treatment.� He contends only that the County failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that he would become dangerous if treatment were withdrawn.� In support of this argument, James points out that there was no evidence presented at the hearing establishing any recent acts of violence against others.� He also argues that his psychiatrist�s testimony that he �could be a danger to others� is insufficient to show that there is a substantial probability he will physically harm others if his commitment is not extended.� James�s arguments do not persuade us.
�8������� While we agree that the hearing testimony did not establish that James is dangerous due to any �recent overt act,� Wis. Stat. � 51.20(1)(a)2.b., that is not the standard for a commitment extension.� Section 51.20(1)(am) eliminates the requirement for evidence of �a recent overt act� under � 51.20(1)(a)2., in recognition that a person who is currently committed and receiving treatment is unlikely to act in the same manner that would subject him or her to an initial commitment.� Section 51.20(1)(am)�s alternative standard is intended to �avoid the �revolving door� phenomena whereby there must be proof of a recent overt act to extend the commitment but because the patient was still under treatment, no overt acts occurred and the patient was released from treatment only to commit a dangerous act and be recommitted.�� State v. W.R.B., 140 Wis. 2d 347, 351, 411 N.W.2d 142 (Ct. App. 1987).� The County need not show that James was recently violent toward others.
�9������� We also disagree with James that the County did not meet its burden that there is a substantial likelihood, based on his treatment record, that he would become dangerous if treatment were withdrawn.� See Wis. Stat. � 51.20(1)(am).� According to James�s psychiatrist, James has a long history of denying his mental illness and his need for medication.� This denial has led James to refuse to take his medication, which in turn has led to deterioration significant enough to require recent hospitalization.� During times of such refusal he has threatened the safety of others.� There is clear and convincing evidence to support the court�s extension of James�s mental health commitment.
����������� By the Court.�Order affirmed.
����������� This opinion will not be published.� See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
[1] This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to Wis. Stat. � 752.31(2)(d) (2013-14).� All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2013-14 version unless otherwise noted.