Winnebago County v. P.D.G.

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
August 16, 2023
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Samuel A. Christensen petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2022AP2005 Cir. Ct. No. 2021ME294

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT II

IN THE MATTER OF THE MENTAL COMMITMENT OF P.D.G.:

WINNEBAGO COUNTY,

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V.

P.D.G.,

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Winnebago County:
DANIEL J. BISSETT, Judge. Affirmed.

¶1 NEUBAUER, J.1 P.D.G. appeals from an order for involuntary
medication and treatment. P.D.G. maintains that Winnebago County failed to
1
This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(d) (2021-22).
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2021-22 version unless otherwise noted.
No. 2022AP2005

carry its burden to prove that he received the statutorily required explanation of
the advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives to his medication. This court
disagrees and affirms.

Background

¶2 In July 2021, the County petitioned the circuit court for a mental
health commitment of and involuntary medication order for P.D.G., an inmate.
The court ordered commitment following a jury trial at which the jury found
P.D.G. to be mentally ill, dangerous to himself or others, and a proper subject for
commitment. While the jury deliberated, the court heard further testimony at a
bench trial on the involuntary medication and treatment issue. After the jury
returned its verdict, the court found that the County had met its burden of proof to
show “that the advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives to psychotropic
medications were explained” to P.D.G. The court entered an order concluding that
P.D.G. was “not competent to refuse psychotropic medication or treatment”
because he was “substantially incapable of applying an understanding of the
advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives to his … condition in order to make an
informed choice as to whether to accept or refuse psychotropic medications or
treatment.” The court thus ordered that medication and treatment be involuntarily
administered during the period of P.D.G.’s commitment. P.D.G.’s challenge on
appeal is limited to this order.

Discussion

¶3 The County bears the burden of proving an individual’s
incompetence to refuse medication by clear and convincing evidence. See WIS.
STAT. § 51.20(13)(e); Outagamie County v. Melanie L., 2013 WI 67, ¶37, 349
Wis. 2d 148, 833 N.W.2d 607. The circuit court’s findings of fact will not be

2
No. 2022AP2005

disturbed unless clearly erroneous, but whether the County met its burden of
proof, which involves the application of facts to the statutory standard, is reviewed
de novo. Melanie L., 349 Wis. 2d 148, ¶¶38-39.

¶4 “[U]nder WIS. STAT. § 51.61, a person has the right to refuse
medication unless a court determines that the person is incompetent to make such
a decision.” Melanie L., 349 Wis. 2d 148, ¶53. Section 51.61(1)(g)4. sets forth
two ways that a person who is mentally ill may be found incompetent to refuse
such medication. First, the person may be found incompetent to refuse if he “is
incapable of expressing an understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of
accepting medication or treatment and the alternatives.” Sec. 51.61(1)(g)4.a.
Second, the person can be found incompetent if he “is substantially incapable of
applying an understanding of the advantages, disadvantages and alternatives to his
… mental illness … in order to make an informed choice as to whether to accept
or refuse medication or treatment.” Sec. 51.61(1)(g)4.b.

¶5 Before the circuit court can find an individual incompetent to refuse
medication under either of these pathways, it must find that the individual has
received “the requisite explanation of the advantages and disadvantages of and
alternatives” to the particular medication in order to make an informed choice.
Melanie L., 349 Wis. 2d 148, ¶54; see also WIS. STAT. § 51.61(1)(g)4. Our
supreme court explained this statutory requirement in Melanie L. as follows:
A person subject to a possible mental commitment or a
possible involuntary medication order is entitled to receive
from one or more medical professionals a reasonable
explanation of proposed medication. The explanation
should include why a particular drug is being prescribed,
what the advantages of the drug are expected to be, what
side effects may be anticipated or are possible, and whether
there are reasonable alternatives to the prescribed
medication. The explanation should be timely, and, ideally,
it should be periodically repeated and reinforced. Medical

3
No. 2022AP2005

professionals and other professionals should document the
timing and frequency of their explanations so that, if
necessary, they have documentary evidence to help
establish this element in court.

Melanie L., 349 Wis. 2d 148, ¶67.

¶6 Here, P.D.G.’s challenge is limited to whether the County failed to
meet its burden of proof on the first aspect of this statutory standard—that is, on
whether “the advantages and disadvantages of and alternatives to accepting the
particular medication or treatment have been explained to the individual.” See
WIS. STAT. § 51.61(1)(g)4. As explained below, this court concludes that the
circuit court did not err in determining that the County proved by clear and
convincing evidence, both through the testimony of Dr. Marshall Bales, a
psychiatrist, and his written evaluation, that P.D.G. was provided with a
reasonable explanation of the advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives to the
two recommended psychotropic medications.

¶7 In his report, which was admitted into evidence, Bales stated that he
provided P.D.G. with an explanation of the advantages, disadvantages and
alternatives to two psychotropic medications, Prolixin and Cogentin. Bales listed
the advantages of the medications, which included “[s]tabilization of mood,
improvement in reality orientation, improvement in sleep patterns, decrease in
irritability and agitation, [and] decrease in anxiety.” Bales’s report also listed the
disadvantages he had explained to P.D.G., including “[m]etabolic issues, such as
weight gain; occasional issues with movement problems, such as tremors,
restlessness, or tardive dyskinesia; occasional mild sedation; [and] occasional
gastrointestinal issues[.]” Bales also listed the alternatives to medication
explained to P.D.G., including “[p]sychotherapy, group therapy, [and] stress
management tactics.”

4
No. 2022AP2005

¶8 At trial, Bales opined that P.D.G. suffered from schizo-affective
disorder, a condition similar to schizophrenia, which resulted in delusional
thinking and mood instability. Bales testified in detail about the discussion he had
with P.D.G. regarding the explanation of the psychotropic medications.
Q Were the advantages, disadvantages, and
alternatives to accepting [psychotropic] medication
explained to him?

A Yes, by me and others.

Q Can you recite one of the advantages that you
discussed with him regarding medication?

A Well … I did state that some of his beliefs appear to
be not based in reality, the Egyptian pharaoh,
grandiose and paranoid statements, and I said it
could help with all of those….

Q And correct me if I’m wrong: My understanding is
one of the advantages that you told him was it could
alleviate some of his delusional symptoms?

A Yes.

Q What’s a disadvantage that you discussed with him?

A I said several things, and I go through a number of
things, intestinal side effects, sedation, tiredness,
shakes, tremors, yet I always emphasized with him
that he work with [his] doctor to minimize side
effects, and even if there are side effects then
perhaps go to a different medication. And with all
of that, I mentioned several side effects and listed
them in my report ….

Q And what if any alternatives were discussed in lieu
of or rather instead of taking medication?

A I said there were no good alternatives, but I said
avoidance of street drugs, including herbs….

¶9 Bales confirmed on cross-examination that the discussion of the
psychotropic medicine took place:

5
No. 2022AP2005

Q Based on your written report, it looks like the
conversation with [P.D.G.] regarding involuntary
medication would come closer to the end of your
evaluation, fair?

A It was, it was toward the end, although, I discuss
medications throughout and, as I recall, there was
some discussion of the psychotropic medication
during the interview but I—It was usually toward
the end of my interview that I speak to the
medication topic.

….

Q Would you agree that you weren’t able to have a
meaningful conversation with [P.D.G.] regarding
medication?

A I was—I reviewed his psychotropics with him, but
due to him talking over me, interrupting me in his
florid psychotic state, it did—it impeded a
reasonable discussion but there was the discussion.

¶10 Bales also elaborated on his explanation of alternatives to
medication with P.D.G.:
Q You did not discuss with him alternatives, including
simply talk therapy or whatever you may call it in
your profession. Is that correct?

A There are many alternatives and I mentioned some
of those: Sleep, exercise, diet, even sometimes
people think prayer and so forth. And I said that
this is a chemical imbalance and there are not good
alternatives. He had to have medication, in so many
words….

¶11 It is clear from Bales’s report and testimony that these advantages,
disadvantages, and alternatives were applicable to the recommended psychotropic
medications identified in the report and about which Bales testified at the hearing.

¶12 This court agrees with the County that Winnebago County v.
Christopher S., 2016 WI 1, 366 Wis. 2d 1, 878 N.W.2d 109, supports its

6
No. 2022AP2005

contention that P.D.G. received the statutorily required explanation. In
Christopher S., our supreme court upheld an involuntary medication and treatment
order based on testimony regarding an explanation that was far less detailed than
what P.D.G. argues was insufficient here. 366 Wis. 2d 1, ¶¶54-56.2 Regardless
whether a minimal recitation of the statutory standard suffices at a bench trial, the
record here contains clear and convincing evidence establishing that P.D.G. was
provided with detailed information about the advantages, disadvantages, and
alternatives to two psychotropic medications. What’s more, unlike in Melanie L.,
and as was the case in Christopher S., Bales’s expert testimony “closely tracked”
the statutory language. See Christopher S., 366 Wis. 2d 1, ¶¶52-54. There simply
is no question that Bales applied the statutory standard in his detailed explanation
to P.D.G. about the advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives to the
psychotropic medications.

Conclusion

¶13 For the reasons stated above, this court affirms the order for
involuntary medication and treatment.

By the Court.—Order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.

2
While the decision recounts a doctor’s affirmative response to the question whether the
advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives to medication were explained to Christopher S., and
another doctor reported a similar description, the concurrence/dissent stated that the record
contained ample evidence that the advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives to medication were
explained. Winnebago County v. Christopher S., 2016 WI 1, ¶¶93-94, 366 Wis. 2d 1, 878
N.W.2d 109 (Abrahamson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

7