Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of August 25, 2014

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

IIn re S.P., Nos. 02-14-00209-CV, 02-14-00210-CV (Aug. 29, 2014) (Dauphinot, J., joined by Gardner and Meier, JJ.).

Held: Evidence that Appellant had previously been diagnosed with bipolar disorder; had been in and out of North Texas State Hospital; was discovered in June 2014 lying naked on the floor of her Texas home with no working utilities; did not sleep but instead sang and danced every night; spoke incoherently; showed no sign of processing information; and would exhaust herself left untreated is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court's temporary commitment order and finding that she lacked capacity to make a decision regarding the administration of proposed medication.

The evidence is also legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court's order regarding the administration of proposed medication. The absence of evidence of any specific proposed medication, specific therapeutic benefits per class of drugs proposed, and the side effects of antidepressants from Appellant's perspective does not render the evidence legally or factually insufficient to support the trial court's finding that treatment with the proposed medication is in Appellant's best interest: (1) The statute contains no requirement that a specific medication be named; (2) the physician's testimony of global benefits of the requested medications was adequate; (3) the evidence of the side effects of the medication by class fairly included the side effects, if any, of antidepressant use, Appellant did not testify, offer evidence, or cross-examine the physician regarding side effects of antidepressants from her perspective, and the statute contains no requirement that the State offer evidence from a proposed patient's perspective; and (4) the record contains evidence on every factor except Appellant's religious preferences and direct, specific evidence about the risks of antidepressants from her perspective, which we presume the trial court considered.

Finally, Appellant can show no harm from the trial court's naming the admitting doctor instead of the testifying physician in the "Notification of Court's Determination." The trial court's order to compel psychoactive medication satisfied the statutory notice requirement, counsel cross-examined the physician and his knowledge is imputed to Appellant, and Appellant timely filed a brief from the order.

 

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «