« Law - Pennsylvania equivalent of our LSA refuses to publish rule | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 5 today (and 10 NFP) »
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court splits on transfer grant in case concerning forced medication
In J.S. v. Center for Behavioral Health, a 20-page opinion issed 5/12/06, Judge Sharpnack concludes:
Although the trial court’s conclusion that J.S. is dangerous is not supported by clear and convincing evidence, we affirm the trial court’s conclusion that J.S. is gravely disabled. Further, the trial court’s forced medication order meets the guidelines set out by the Indiana Supreme Court in M.P., 510 N.E.2d at 647-648. Thus, the trial court’s order for commitment and forced medication are reasonable and supported by clear and convincing evidence. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order granting commitment and forced medication.Today the Supreme Court has failed to grant transfer to the case, splitting 3-2. Justice Rucker's 7-page "Dissent from Denial of Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals" is available here. Some quotes:
Addressing the circumstances under which a mental health patient can be forced to take anti-psychotic drugs against the patient’s will, this Court announced among other things that the “indefinite administration of these medications is not permissible.” In re the Mental Commitment of M.P., 510 N.E.2d 645, 648 (Ind. 1987). In this case the Appellant seeks transfer contending that the trial court’s order requiring Appellant to take medication over her objection is in direct conflict with the foregoing precedent. I agree and therefore would grant transfer. * * *The Court of Appeals in this case acknowledged that the trial court’s order “did not specify a time period for the forced administration of the medications.” J.S., 846 N.E.2d at 1115. According to the court “the statutory review requirement exists regardless of whether the trial court’s order mentions it.” Id. The court reasoned that the periodic review for commitment orders provided by Indiana Code section 12-26-15-1(a)3 rendered the Forced Medication Order here not indefinite. I have a much different view than that of my colleagues. * * *
In sum, Indiana Code section 12-26-15-1(a), like its predecessor Indiana Code section 16-14-9.1-10, does not provide protection against the indefinite administration of anti-psychotic drugs against a patient’s will. That can only be accomplished by careful trial court oversight and the entry of an appropriate order imposing a precise time limit. See, e.g., In re the Commitment of J.B., 766 N.E.2d 795, 801 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (concluding that the trial court’s forced medication order was erroneous, in part because it failed to impose a definite time limit on the medications that were to be administered). I would therefore grant transfer in this case, reverse the Forced Medication Order, and remand to the trial court to enter an order that curtails the time period within which J.S.’s forced medication can be administered.
Sullivan, J., concurs.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 9, 2007 11:13 AM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions