{ "id": 1599300, "name": "In re MICHELLE J., Alleged to be a Person Subject to Involuntary Admission (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Michelle J., Respondent-Appellant); In re SAM S., Alleged to be a Person Subject to Involuntary Admission (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Sam S., Respondent-Appellant)", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Michelle J.", "decision_date": "2003-01-30", "docket_number": "No. 5\u201401\u20140753, 5\u201401\u20140770 cons.", "first_page": "1026", "last_page": "1032", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "336 Ill. App. 3d 1026" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "148 Ill. App. 3d 746", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3642848 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "750" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/148/0746-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 Ill. App. 3d 245", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3412832 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "249" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/56/0245-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 Ill. App. 3d 618", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3421652 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "620" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/57/0618-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 Ill. App. 3d 138", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3076595 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/102/0138-01" ] }, { "cite": "183 Ill. 2d 482", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 209988 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "488" }, { "page": "488" }, { "page": "497" }, { "page": "497" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/183/0482-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 630, "char_count": 14823, "ocr_confidence": 0.769, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.283159945918394e-08, "percentile": 0.47902117073234773 }, "sha256": "64e93f7d8a9d41d1393e9d20b8628a29d22697dfcda928f872781a6f611b8c87", "simhash": "1:0812bd6577167e9c", "word_count": 2415 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:43:40.180592+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re MICHELLE J., Alleged to be a Person Subject to Involuntary Admission (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Michelle J., Respondent-Appellant). \u2014 In re SAM S., Alleged to be a Person Subject to Involuntary Admission (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Sam S., Respondent-Appellant)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE HOPKINS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn August 23, 2001, Michelle J. and Sam S. (collectively respondents) were persons found to be subject to involuntary admission at Alton Mental Health Center. At the hearings for involuntary admission, the expert witnesses for the State testified that neither of them was able to interview respondents prior to the hearing and that their opinion testimony relied upon observations of respondents, a review of respondents\u2019 charts and records, prior knowledge of respondents, and discussions with hospital staff who regularly interacted with respondents. Both Michelle J. and Sam S. appeal the orders finding them subject to involuntary admission. They contend that the experts\u2019 testimony did not conform with section 3 \u2014 807 of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code (Code) (405 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 807 (West 2000)). Respondents claim that because section 3 \u2014 807 requires a psychiatrist, clinical social worker, or clinical psychologist to \u201cexamine\u201d a respondent and because the experts did not interview respondents, the requirement of section 3 \u2014 807 was not met and the court\u2019s orders must be reversed. We affirm.\nFACTS\n1. Michelle J.\u2019s Hearing\nDr. Lenora Brown, a licensed clinical psychologist employed at Alton Mental Health Center, testified that she knew Michelle J. and had been a consultant to Michelle J.\u2019s treatment team. Dr. Brown stated that she observed Michelle J. on August 20, 2001, the day of her admission to Alton Mental Health Center. Additionally, Dr. Brown attempted to interview Michelle J. on August 22, 2001, for the purpose of Michelle J.\u2019s hearing for involuntary admission. On August 22, before conducting the interview, Dr. Brown attempted to advise Michelle J. of her rights, but Michelle J. could not respond, so Dr. Brown discontinued the interview. Dr. Brown stated that because of Michelle J.\u2019s deteriorated clinical condition, Dr. Brown did not believe that Michelle J. could make an informed decision concerning her rights. However, Dr. Brown stated that she had reviewed Michelle J.\u2019s chart and records and talked with staff about Michelle J.\u2019s condition and behavior.\nDr. Brown testified that Michelle J. has a diagnosis of schizophrenia, paranoid type. Dr. Brown stated that Michelle J. has had prior admissions to Alton Mental Health Center, the last one being in August 2000. Michelle J. has also had multiple mental health admissions to St. Mary\u2019s Hospital, the most recent being July 2001. Dr. Brown reported that at the time of Michelle J.\u2019s admission to Alton Mental Health Center on August 20, Michelle J.\u2019s sister, with whom Michelle J. lives, reported that Michelle J. had inserted a metal pipe into her vagina and stated that she wanted to kill herself. When Michelle J. was admitted to Alton Mental Health Center, she was unkempt, disoriented, and suspicious. Michelle J. was talking to herself and laughing inappropriately. When Michelle J. was at the emergency room of the hospital, she was restless, wandering in and out of the room. Michelle J. was also somewhat hostile and had an occasional temper outburst. Dr. Brown was aware that Michelle J. suffered from postpartum depression following the recent birth of her child.\nDr. Brown also testified that Michelle J. hears voices, has paranoid ideations, demonstrates an unstable mood, and is anxious and agitated. Michelle J. also paces and makes bizarre gestures. On the day of Michelle J.\u2019s admission to Alton Mental Health Center, Michelle J. was given \u201cstat medication\u201d and was placed in restraints for self-injurious behavior. On August 21, 2001, Michelle J. complained of insomnia and of snakes in her bed. It was Dr. Brown\u2019s opinion that Michelle J. is in need of involuntary admission to Alton Mental Health Center because Michelle J. is a danger to herself.\nMichelle J. also testified at the hearing. Michelle J. stated that she is 19 years old and that she lives with her sister and her father. Michelle J. also stated that her sister and her father make sure she takes her medication, although Michelle J. was not sure what medications she takes. Michelle J. stated that she takes medications for her \u201cnerves\u201d and for her emotions when she becomes \u201cmoody like this.\u201d Michelle J. admitted that she sometimes hears voices and that she sometimes sees things that other people do not see.\nMichelle J. stated that she has two children who are \u201cwith the State\u201d until she can get herself together. Michelle J. also stated that she is going crazy because she is afraid she will never see her baby.\n2. Sam S.\u2019s Hearing\nAt Sam S.\u2019s hearing for involuntary admission, Sam S.\u2019s attorney presented Sam S.\u2019s signed waiver of his presence at the hearing. Although Sam S.\u2019s hearing was held at Alton Mental Health Center, Sam S. had recently been transferred to Chester Mental Health Center. Sam S.\u2019s attorney stated that it was his opinion that Sam S.\u2019s current state is such that Sam S.\u2019s presence at the hearing would cause Sam S. severe emotional harm. The court accepted the waiver of Sam S.\u2019s presence and indicated that Sam S.\u2019s hearing on August 23 was for a 180-day review.\nDr. Debra Ferguson, the chief psychologist at Alton Mental Health Center, testified that she is not directly involved with Sam S.\u2019s treatment but that she had reviewed Sam S.\u2019s progress notes and that she is familiar with the \u201csignificant features of his treatment.\u201d Dr. Ferguson also testified that she had reviewed Sam S.\u2019s chart and records and that she had talked to staff concerning Sam S.\u2019s condition and behavior. Dr. Ferguson attempted to meet with Sam S. for the purpose of interviewing him for his upcoming hearing for involuntary admission, but she was unable to interview him because Sam S. was in restraints at the time.\nDr. Ferguson stated that Sam S. has been continuously admitted at Alton Mental Health Center since 1995. Sam S. has been an involuntary admission since 1997. At the time of Sam S.\u2019s initial involuntary admission in 1997, Sam S.\u2019s clinical condition had deteriorated significantly, and Sam S. was actively psychotic and delusional. Dr. Ferguson stated that Sam S.\u2019s diagnosis is \u201cschizophrenia paranoid type continuous.\u201d\nDr. Ferguson testified that Sam S.\u2019s behavior had recently become increasingly aggressive. Dr. Ferguson\u2019s review of Sam S.\u2019s records from Chester Mental Health Center established that Sam S. continues to be actively psychotic and threatening to others and that these behaviors had required Sam S. to be in full restraints or in seclusion for a period of 10 days. Dr. Ferguson opined that Sam S. presents a substantial danger to others, as evidenced by his violent and aggressive acting-out behavior, while Sam S. is unable to take care of his own basic medical needs.\nSam S.\u2019s records indicate that Sam S. is diabetic and mentally ill but that he denies both maladies. Sam S. refuses to take insulin for his diabetes and refuses to take medication for his mental illness. Additionally, the most recent petition for involuntary admission filed in Sam S.\u2019s case indicates that Sam S. is very paranoid and delusional and that Sam S. attacked another patient on July 21, 2001, while the patient slept, causing a total loss of the patient\u2019s right eye. It was also reported in the certificates of need attached to the petition for Sam S.\u2019s involuntary admission that Sam S. is unable to sleep at night because he is afraid someone might attack him.\nThe court determined from the records and the testimony at respondents\u2019 hearings that both were in need of mental health treatment and were subject to involuntary admission, and it ordered that they be hospitalized in the Department of Human Services.\nANALYSIS\nAs noted previously, respondents were found subject to involuntary admission on August 23, 2001, and both have appealed their orders. Counsel for respondents moved to consolidate their cases because both cases raise the same issue \u2014 that the requirement of section 3 \u2014 807 (that an expert who testifies at a hearing for involuntary admission must \u201cexamine\u201d a respondent before the hearing) was not met because the experts did not \u201cinterview\u201d either respondent. This court granted the motion to consolidate. Essentially, respondents claim that an examination of a respondent by an expert, as contemplated by section 3 \u2014 807 of the Code, means a one-on-one interview with the respondent. Respondents cite to In re Barbara H., 183 Ill. 2d 482 (1998), to support their claim.\nSection 3 \u2014 807 states as follows:\n\u201cNo respondent may be found subject to involuntary admission unless at least one psychiatrist, clinical social worker, or clinical psychologist who has examined him testifies in person at the hearing. The respondent may waive the requirement of the testimony subject to the approval of the court.\u201d 405 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 807 (West 2000).\nBased on this language, respondents contend that \u201cexamine\u201d means an interview with the respondent.\nMental health proceedings are for the benefit of both the public and the patient. In re Collins, 102 Ill. App. 3d 138 (1981). For an involuntary admission of a respondent, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the person is in need of mental treatment and that the person is reasonably expected to harm herself or others. In re Dukes, 57 Ill. App. 3d 618 (1978). A doctor who testifies at a respondent\u2019s hearing for involuntary admission can base his or her testimony upon observations of a respondent\u2019s condition. See In re Dukes, 57 Ill. App. 3d at 620; In re Whitehouse, 56 Ill. App. 3d 245, 249 (1977). In In re Pritchett, 148 Ill. App. 3d 746 (1986), the reviewing court did not find the expert\u2019s opinion invalidated because there was no communication between the doctor and the respondent, but the court instead found that the doctor\u2019s opinion, which was based upon the doctor\u2019s examination of letters written by the respondent, other medical staffs observations recorded in the respondent\u2019s charts, petitions signed by residents in the community where the respondent lived, and a consultation with another physician, was sufficient for the court to find the respondent subject to involuntary admission. In re Pritchett, 148 Ill. App. 3d at 750.\nBased on the foregoing authorities, we find that an examination of a respondent, as contemplated in section 3 \u2014 807, is not limited to an interview of the respondent. An examination can include the expert\u2019s observations of the respondent, a review of the respondent\u2019s charts and records, a consultation with others involved in the day-today care of the respondent, and whenever possible an interview with the respondent. While it is highly desirous that an expert interview a respondent prior to a hearing for involuntary admission, a respondent\u2019s mental illness does not always permit an interview. Where, as here, the expert\u2019s testimony, combined with the other evidence, clearly and convincingly established that Michelle J. and Sam S. were persons in need of mental treatment and were subject to involuntary admission, we do not find that an expert\u2019s interview with a respondent is absolutely required by section 3 \u2014 807 of the Code, where the experts examine the respondent\u2019s medical records and talk to workers intimately involved with the respondent\u2019s day-to-day behaviors and conditions. Our decision is influenced by the fact that the experts in these cases attempted to interview respondents but were unsuccessful due to respondent\u2019s impaired conditions. These experts did examine respondents and found them in such psychiatric conditions that verbal interrogation was impossible and that respondents lacked the capacity to consent to the verbal interrogations.\nWe find that respondents\u2019 cases are inapposite to the case relied on by respondents, In re Barbara H., 183 Ill. 2d 482. In In re Barbara H., the Illinois Supreme Court determined that \u201c[Barbara H.\u2019s] primary argument *** was that section 3 \u2014 806 of the *** Code (405 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 806 (West 1996)), which allowed the public defender to waive her presence at the August 2 hearing, was unconstitutional.\u201d In re Barbara H., 183 Ill. 2d at 488. The court held that there was no showing that the public defender who had purported to act on Barbara H.\u2019s behalf had such authority, and it reversed the findings of the trial court because the requirements of the Code regarding such waivers of a respondent\u2019s right to be present were not satisfied. In re Barbara H., 183 Ill. 2d at 488. In dicta, the court further stated that Barbara H.\u2019s hearing for involuntary admission was defective because the State\u2019s \u201centire case was predicated on the testimony of a physician who had not personally examined her.\u201d In re Barbara H., 183 Ill. 2d at 497. \u201cAlthough the doctor had treated Barbara H. in the past, he admitted on direct examination that he had not had an opportunity to perform a psychiatric examination on her in connection with this case and her present situation.\u201d (Emphasis added.) In re Barbara H., 183 Ill. 2d at 497. From the supreme court\u2019s statement, it is unclear what the doctor actually testified to at the hearing or if he even attempted to talk to the respondent. In comparison, both of the experts in respondents\u2019 cases attempted to interview respondents, but because of respondents\u2019 mental illnesses, the experts were not able to conduct a successful interview. This differs from In re Barbara H.\nIt is also noteworthy that in respondents\u2019 cases, counsel does not contend that they were not found subject to involuntary admission by clear and convincing evidence. They simply contend that the language of section 3 \u2014 807 mandates an examination in order for an involuntary admission to occur. We find that the trial court\u2019s orders finding respondents subject to involuntary admission were based on clear and convincing evidence and that the requirement of section 3 \u2014 807 of the Code has been met.\nCONCLUSION\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the circuit court of Madison County concerning respondents are affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nMAAG and WELCH, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE HOPKINS" } ], "attorneys": [ "Jeff M. Plesko and Anthony E. Rothert, both of Guardianship and Advocacy Commission, of Alton, for appellants.", "William Haine, State\u2019s Attorney, of Edwardsville (Norbert J. Goetten, Stephen E. Norris, and Kevin D. Sweeney, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re MICHELLE J., Alleged to be a Person Subject to Involuntary Admission (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Michelle J., Respondent-Appellant). \u2014 In re SAM S., Alleged to be a Person Subject to Involuntary Admission (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Sam S., Respondent-Appellant).\nFifth District\nNo. 5\u201401\u20140753, 5\u201401\u20140770 cons.\nOpinion filed January 30, 2003.\nRehearing denied February 14, 2003.\nJeff M. Plesko and Anthony E. Rothert, both of Guardianship and Advocacy Commission, of Alton, for appellants.\nWilliam Haine, State\u2019s Attorney, of Edwardsville (Norbert J. Goetten, Stephen E. Norris, and Kevin D. Sweeney, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "1026-01", "first_page_order": 1044, "last_page_order": 1050 }