Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Doe

Supreme Court of North Dakota

January 15, 2019

In the Interest of Jane Doe
v.
Jane Doe, Respondent and Appellant William Pryatel, M.D., Petitioner and Appellee

          Appeal from the District Court of Stutsman County, Southeast Judicial District, the Honorable Cherie L. Clark, Judge.

          Opinion of the Court by Crothers, Justice. Leo A. Ryan, Special Assistant Attorney General, Jamestown, ND, for petitioner and appellee.

          Andrew Marquart, Fargo, ND, for respondent and appellant.

          Crothers, Justice.

         [¶ 1] Jane Doe appeals from a district court order continuing her treatment at the North Dakota State Hospital. The district court found Jane Doe mentally ill, a person requiring treatment, and that no alternative treatment was appropriate. We conclude under our standard of review that the finding Jane Doe is a mentally ill person requiring treatment is not clearly erroneous. The district court's order is affirmed.

         I

         [¶ 2] In July 2017 the North Dakota State Hospital petitioned for involuntary hospitalization of Jane Doe after police took her into custody for lying on the highway and refusing to cooperate with law enforcement and medical providers. Jane Doe refused to provide identifying information or submit to photographs to aid in her identification. After her initial admission to the State Hospital Jane Doe refused to meet with hospital staff, take medications or shower. The district court initially ordered Jane Doe to undergo treatment for fourteen days, at the end of which the district court found Jane Doe a mentally ill patient requiring further treatment. This Court summarily affirmed the district court's ninety-day treatment order. See Interest of Jane Doe, 2017 ND 228, 902 N.W.2d 504. After ninety days the State Hospital obtained an order continuing treatment for one year. This Court summarily affirmed that decision in Interest of Jane Doe, 2017 ND 277, 904 N.W.2d 40. On October 3, 2018, a psychologist at the State Hospital petitioned for continuing treatment, alleging Jane Doe continues to be a mentally ill person requiring treatment. On October 22, 2018, the district court held a hearing and granted the State Hospital's petition, and ordered Jane Doe to undergo treatment at the State Hospital for a period not exceeding one year.

         [¶ 3] Jane Doe refused to identify herself and will not allow staff to take photographs or perform dental work. Due to Jane Doe's unwillingness to provide information or participate in medical decisions, a guardian was appointed and given medical and residential control. The State Hospital administers medication to Jane Doe which enables her to control some schizophrenic and psychotic tendencies with lingering isolative behaviors and on-going paranoia. On appeal Jane Doe argues the State Hospital did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that she requires treatment, and even if she is a person requiring treatment, less restrictive treatment is appropriate.

         II

         [¶ 4] Jane Doe argues the district court's order was not supported by clear and convincing evidence showing she was a mentally ill person and a person requiring treatment. This Court's review of an appeal from a mental health hearing is well established:

"Our review of an appeal under N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.1 is limited to a review of the procedures, findings, and conclusions of the trial court. Interest of D.A., 2005 ND 116, ¶ 11, 698 N.W.2d 474. We review the findings of the district court under the more probing clearly erroneous standard of review. Id. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if there is no evidence to support it, or if, although there is some evidence to support it, on the entire evidence this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction it is not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Id." Interest of B.L.S., 2006 ND 218, ¶ 10, 723 N.W.2d 395 (internal quotation marks omitted).

         [¶ 5] The petitioner must overcome the presumption that a respondent does not require treatment with clear and convincing evidence. In the Interest of J.A.D., 492 N.W.2d 82, 85 (N.D.1992). Section 25-03.1-02(13), N.D.C.C., defines "[p]erson requiring treatment" as "a person who is mentally ill or a person who is chemically dependent, and there is a reasonable expectation that if the individual is not treated for the mental illness or chemical dependency there exists a serious risk of harm to that individual, others, or property." "Serious risk of harm" means a substantial likelihood of:

"a. Suicide, as manifested by suicidal threats, attempts, or significant depression relevant to suicidal potential;
b. Killing or inflicting serious bodily harm on another individual or inflicting significant property damage, as ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.