| Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions |
|
|
|
| Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions |
|
|
|
|
You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. In the Matter of the Necessity of the Hospitalization of Lucy G. (9/13/2019) sp-7407
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER.
Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,
303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email
corrections@akcourts.us.
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
In the Matter of the Necessity for the )
Hospitalization of ) Supreme Court No. S-16697
)
LUCY G.
) Superior Court No. 1JU-17-00138 PR
)
) O P I N I O N
)
) No. 7407 - September 13, 2019
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, First
Judicial District, Juneau, Louis J. Menendez, Judge.
Appearances: Josie W. Garton, Assistant Public Defender,
Callie Patton Kim, Assistant Public Defender, and Quinlan
Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for Lucy G. Ruth
Botstein, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage, and
Jahna Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, for State of
Alaska.
Before: Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen,
and Carney, Justices.
WINFREE, Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a case of first impression regarding an order for administration of
electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) to a catatonic, non-consenting patient. At the superior
court hearing, the parties agreed that constitutional standards established in Myers v.
Alaska Psychiatric Institute for ordering involuntary, non-emergency administration of
psychotropic medication also apply to involuntary ECT. The patient now argues that
----------------------- Page 2-----------------------
there should be heightened standards for ordering involuntary ECT and that, in any
event, the superior court's Myers analysis was legally deficient. We hold that the
superior court did not plainly err by applying the existing Myers constitutional standards
to authorize involuntary ECT to the non-consenting patient. We also hold that the
superior court made sufficient findings related to each relevant, contested mandatory
Myers factor. In our independent judgment, these findings support the court's
involuntary ECT order. We affirm the superior court's decision.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Underlying Facts
1 in an Anchorage parking lot,
In March 2017 police officers found Lucy G.
wet and shivering. She was taken to a local hospital, where she initially exhibited
"agitated, self-harming, and disoriented" behaviors requiring sedation for her and the
staff's safety. Lucy, who was calm but unresponsive by the end of the day, was
diagnosed as catatonic. Hospital staff also noted her prior schizophrenia diagnosis and
psychotropic medication prescriptions, as well as hospitalization the prior month. After
a petition by hospital staff, the superior court authorized Lucy's hospitalization for an
involuntary commitment evaluation.2
Lucy was transported to a Juneau hospital for evaluation. The hospital's
medical director for behavioral health, a Juneau psychiatrist, diagnosed Lucy with
catatonia. In April the psychiatrist petitioned the superior court to: involuntarily commit
1 We use a pseudonym to protect Lucy's privacy.
2
See AS 47.30.700(a) (discussing evaluation procedure for initial
involuntary commitment).
-2- 7407
----------------------- Page 3-----------------------
3 4
Lucy for 30 days; order involuntary administration of psychotropic medication; and
5
order involuntary ECT.
The psychiatrist's prognosis for Lucy's catatonia with
psychotropic medication was only "[f]air," but her prognosis with ECT was
"[e]xcellent."
B. Hearing Testimony Regarding Lucy
6
The superior court held a contested hearing a few days later. The court
heard testimony from the petitioning Juneau psychiatrist and a Fairbanks psychiatrist
who would supervise Lucy's treatment at the only facility then providing ECT in Alaska.
Both psychiatrists were qualified by the court as experts in mental illness diagnosis and
7
ECT treatment. The court-appointed visitor and a public defender investigator who had
worked on her prior commitment cases also testified.
TheJuneaupsychiatrist testified that Lucy hadbeenunresponsiveto people
or tactile stimuli since her hospital admission and that she was unable to tend to her most
basic needs. The psychiatrist stated that Lucy was at risk of bed sores, pneumonia, and
blood clots due to immobility; infection from urine retention; and complications from
3 See AS 47.30.730(a) (discussing 30-day commitment petitions).
4 See AS 47.30.839 (discussing court-ordered medication administration).
5 See AS 47.30.825(f) (discussing court-ordered ECT administration).
6 See AS 47.30.735 (discussing 30-day commitment petition hearing);
AS 47.30.839(e) (discussing court-ordered medication petition hearing).
7 When a court considers a petition to authorize psychotropic medication, a
"visitor" must be appointed to "assist the court." AS 47.30.839(d). The visitor's duties
include "gather[ing] and provid[ing] information to the court on . . . the patient's present
condition [and] . . . conduct[ing] a search for any prior 'expressed wishes of the patient
regarding medication.' " Myers v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 138 P.3d 238, 243-44
(Alaska 2006) (quoting AS 47.30.839(d)).
-3- 7407
----------------------- Page 4-----------------------
intravenous-therapy fluids and apotentialfeeding tube. The psychiatrist said that despite
increasing dosages of psychotropic medication, there had been no "significant change."
The psychiatrist explained that improvements from psychotropic medication usually
occur within the first week: "[I]f you don't see an improvement within those first several
days, you're not likely to see much of anything after that." The psychiatrist noted that,
compared to Lucy's prior hospitalizations,this hospitalizationconstituted Lucy's longest
documented unresponsiveness and the time between hospitalizations had been
decreasing.
The Juneau psychiatrist testified to an 80% to 90% chance of improving
Lucy's catatonia with ECT. The psychiatrist discussed ECT's common side effects,
including headache, jaw pain, muscle aches, and dental issues. The psychiatrist also
explained that, although some people complain of memory loss, formal neurological
comparisons before and after ECT show patient "memory is actually better." The
psychiatrist believed that ECT was Lucy's least restrictive treatment alternative because
her catatonia was worsening every day, she was not responding to psychotropic
medication, and there was a risk that without treatment the catatonia would become
irreversible. The psychiatrist stated that if Lucy had been living in any other state, her
doctors would have considered ECT to treat her catatonia six months earlier.
The Fairbanks psychiatrist had not yet examined Lucy but had consulted
with the Juneau psychiatrist. The Fairbanks psychiatrist testified that she would conduct
an independent evaluation prior to administering ECT. She agreed that, because Lucy
was "essentially paralyzed from her psychiatric illness," the standard of care called for
immediate ECT treatment, the "gold standard treatment for catatonia." The Fairbanks
psychiatrist estimated that significant results from ECT could be seen within nine
treatments and that sustained benefits could require continued outpatient treatment.
-4- 7407
----------------------- Page 5-----------------------
Like the Juneau psychiatrist, the Fairbanks psychiatrist expected that a
patient's memory would improve after ECT. But the Fairbanks psychiatrist noted ECT's
other potential side effects, including the "approximately 1 in 10,000" chance of death,
as well as risks related to the required anesthesia: stroke, heart attack, and blood clots.
Like the Juneau psychiatrist, the Fairbanks psychiatrist ultimately believed that
involuntary ECT was the least restrictive treatment available to ensure Lucy's safety and
was in her best interests. The Fairbanks psychiatrist repeatedly testified that if at any
point during the commitment Lucy regained capacity, the psychiatrist would defer to
Lucy whether to continue treatment.
The public defender investigator testified that Lucy's only next of kin, her
significant other, had passed away in July 2016. The court visitor testified that "the court
[was] at a disadvantage because they haven't been able to see" Lucy's "dramatic"
condition. The visitor stated that Lucy is "gravely disabled, and in need of help. And
it doesn't seem like the courses of treatment that have been utilized to date have been
effective for her or sustained over any period of time."
C. Hearing Testimony Regarding ECT In Alaska
Hearing testimony discussed the basics of ECT treatment. ECT is
performed under general anesthesia. A patient receives "the lowest amount of energy
required to have an effective seizure" through electrodes placed on the head. Doctors
monitor the patient's vital signs and brain waves during the procedure, and a "bite block"
is held in place in the patient's mouth.
The Fairbanks psychiatrist testified that she had received specialized
training prior to opening Fairbanks Memorial Hospital's ECT treatment center in August
-5- 7407
----------------------- Page 6-----------------------
8
2016. She said that ECT is not an experimental catatonia treatment and that Alaska has
"had it in the past, but . . . it's been several years since anyone in the state had a running
program." She said that the ECT center was inspected by a national accrediting body,
was deemed to have "zero deficiencies," and was "identified . . . as a best practice
[institute] for other facilities around the country that have ECT programs." She noted
that by the time of Lucy's hearing, the ECT center had provided approximately 200 ECT
treatments to 11 voluntary patients. Lucy would be the ECT center's first involuntary
patient.
D. Superior Court's Findings And Conclusions; This Appeal
The superior court found by clear and convincing evidence that Lucy
suffered from a mental illness, was gravely disabled, and lacked capacity to give
informed consent. The court also found by clear and convincing evidence that
involuntary ECT was in Lucy's best interests and that there was "no other reasonable
alternative in conjunction with the administration of psychotropic drugs." The court
considered the psychiatrists' testimony, citing ECT's "80 to 90 percent response rate"
and side effects including "muscular pain, clenched jaw, [and] dental issues." The court
found "[t]here may be some issues in terms of, again, one's heart; but there's no evidence
of death. And what's been given to me in terms of ECT is the fact that the negatives are
far, far, far less than the positives." The court ordered the 30-day commitment and
granted the petitions for involuntary psychotropic medication and ECT.
Lucy appeals only the ECT order, arguing that the superior court erred by
determining that ECT was in her best interests and by determining that ECT was the least
intrusive alternative treatment available to her.
8
Cf. AS 47.30.830(a) (prohibiting experimental treatments involving
"significant risk of physical or psychological harm").
-6- 7407
----------------------- Page 7-----------------------
III. DISCUSSION
A. Applying The Existing Myers Best Interests Factors - As The Parties
Agreed - Was Not Plain Error.
In Myers v. Alaska Psychiatric Institute we held that - in non-emergency
situations - a court may not authorize administration of psychotropic medications to a
non-consenting patient without first determining that the medication is in the patient's
9
best interests and that no less intrusive alternative treatment is available. The parties
agreed at the commitment hearing that the superior court should apply the Myers factors
to determine whether to order involuntary ECT for Lucy. But in her appellate briefing
Lucy advocates - for the first time - that an additional layer of protection for court-
ordered ECT is merited on the ground that ECT is a greater intrusion than psychotropic
medication to a patient's autonomy. Because Lucy did not argue for this heightened
10
standard in the superior court, we review her claim for plain error.
9 138 P.3d at 239 ("[I]n the absence of emergency, a court may not authorize
the state to administer psychotropic drugs to a non-consenting mental patient unless the
court determines that the medication is in the best interests of the patient and that no less
intrusive alternative treatment is available."); see also AS 47.30.915(11) (defining "least
restrictive alternative" as "no more harsh, hazardous, or intrusive than necessary to
achieve the treatment objectives of the patient; and . . . involv[ing] no restrictions on
physical movement . . . except as reasonably necessary for the administration of
treatment or the protection of the patient or others from physical injury").
10 Wereviewunpreserved claims for plain error. Plain error exists when there
is an " 'obvious mistake' that is 'obviously prejudicial.' " In re Hospitalization of
Gabriel C., 324 P.3d 835, 838 (Alaska 2014) (first quoting Adams v. State , 261 P.3d 758,
773 (Alaska 2011); then quoting State, Dep't of Revenue, Child Support Enf't Div. ex
rel. P.M. v. Mitchell, 930 P.2d 1284, 1288 (Alaska 1997)).
-7- 7407
----------------------- Page 8-----------------------
In Myers we held that a patient's "right to refuse to take psychotropic drugs
11
is fundamental."
We now likewise hold that a patient's right to refuse ECT is
fundamental. We have held that "[w]hen a law places substantial burdens on the exercise
of a fundamental right, we require the state to 'articulate a compelling' [state] interest'
12
and to demonstrate 'the absence of a less restrictive means to advance [that] interest.' "
Because administering involuntary ECTburdens a patient's fundamental rights, the state
must: (1) articulate a compelling interest in administering involuntary ECT; and
(2) demonstrate that involuntary ECT administration is the least restrictive means to
advance that compelling interest.
We "readily agree[d]" in Myers that "the state's parens patriae obligation
does give it a compelling interest in administering psychotropic medication to unwilling
13 But we could not categorically answer when less
mental patients in some situations."
restrictive means exist.14 We instead stated that before such treatment could be ordered,
an independent judicial determination of the patient's best interests must be made to
ensure that the proposed treatment actually is the least restrictive means of protecting the
patient.15
Although we held that considering a patient's best interests is required as
part of the superior court's determination whether involuntary medication is the least
11 138 P.3d at 248.
12 Id. at 245-46 (second and third alterations in original) (first quoting Ranney
v. Whitewater Eng'g, 122 P.3d 214, 222 (Alaska 2005); then quoting Sampson v. State,
31 P.3d 88, 91 (Alaska 2001)).
13 Id. at 249.
14 Id.
15 Id. at 250.
-8- 7407
----------------------- Page 9-----------------------
restrictive means to advance the state's compelling interest, we subsequently have
16
separated these inquiries.
We now clarify that for a particular treatment - involuntary
medication or ECT - to be the least restrictive means to advance the state's compelling
interest, the superior court must find it both to be in the patient's best interests and the
least intrusive treatment option available.
In Bigleyv.Alaska PsychiatricInstitute weexplained that the Myers inquiry
balances "the fundamental liberty and privacy interests of the patient against the
compelling state interest under its parens patriae authority to 'protect "the person and
17 This constitutional balancing
property" of an individual who "lack[s] . . . capacity." ' "
test is a "fact-intensive inquiry" because, "[a]lthough the state cannot intrude on a
fundamental right where there is a less intrusive alternative, the alternative must actually
be available, meaning that it is feasible and would actually satisfy the compelling state
interests that justify the proposed state action."18 We recently reiterated in Kiva O. v.
State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services that
16 See In re Hospitalization of Linda M. , 440 P.3d 168, 176 (Alaska 2019)
(considering best interests analysis and stating that the "record also supports the
independent conclusion that there were no less intrusive alternatives to involuntary
medication"); Kiva O. v. State Dep't of Health &Soc. Servs. Office of Children's Servs. ,
408 P.3d 1181, 1190-92 (Alaska 2018) (discussing inquiries separately); In re
Hospitalization of Jacob S. , 384 P.3d 758, 772 (Alaska 2016) (discussing best interests
but not least intrusive alternative); Bigley v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst. , 208 P.3d 168, 185-
88 (Alaska 2009) (discussing inquiries separately).
17 208 P.3d at 185 (alteration in original) (quoting Myers, 138 P.3d at 249).
18 Id.
-9- 7407
----------------------- Page 10-----------------------
"[a]ssessing the feasibility and likely effectiveness of a proposed alternative is in large
part an evidence-based factual inquiry by the trial court." 19
Lucy argues that in addition to - or despite - the Myers fact-intensive,
no-less-intrusive-alternative inquiry, we should hold as a matter of law that ECT is more
intrusive than psychotropic medication, and, therefore, that involuntary ECT can be
administered as a last resort only when psychotropic medication will not suffice. We
20
find Lucy's argument flawed on two bases: First, her reliance on Matter of C.D.M., a
case predating Myers by 25 years, to create this heightened standard is misplaced; and
second, her request that we rule ECT categorically is more intrusive than psychotropic
medication is misdirected - that is a question for the legislature.
In C.D.M. we held that a court could not order involuntary sterilization
unless the patient's incapacity was permanent and the procedure "absolutely
necessary."21 Lucy asserts, based on this holding, that a court can order involuntary ECT
only as a last resort and not to "circumvent a patient's refusal to take psychotropic
medication when competent." But we premised our decision in C.D.M. on the fact that
"[s]terilization necessarily results in the permanent termination of the intensely personal
right to procreate."22 ECT, unlike sterilization, is not designed to permanently abridge
a fundamental right. Court-ordered mental health treatment is statutorily limited to 30
days; extending beyond that time requires a new court hearing and constitutional
19 408 P.3d at 1191 (alteration in original) (quoting Bigley, 208 P.3d at 185).
20
627 P.2d 607 (Alaska 1981).
21
Id. at 613.
22
Id. at 612.
-10- 7407
----------------------- Page 11-----------------------
23
inquiry, and such treatment may not be provided to any person who has regained
24
capacity to consent to or decline treatment.
Because ECT is not designed to
permanently abridge a fundamental right, we decline to apply our C.D.M. holding in this
context.
We also reject Lucy's policy argument that we should hold as a matter of
law that ECT is more intrusive than psychotropic medications. This substantive policy
25 We recognized in Myers that
decision rests squarely within the legislature's province.
many states "have equated the intrusiveness of psychotropic medication with the
intrusiveness of [ECT]."26 And nothing in our current statutory scheme evinces a clearly
contrary legislative intent.
Although Title 47 of the Alaska Statutes differentiates between treatment
methods in crisis situations - authorizing only psychotropic medication in
emergencies27 - there is no indicated preference for psychotropic medication in non-
crisis situations. And under AS 47.30.772, evaluation and treatment facilities "may
administer medication or other treatment to an involuntarily committed patient"
consistent with other statutory provisions. (Emphasis added.) Within the "other
23 See AS 47.30.730-.770.
24 See AS47.30.825(f) ("Apatientcapableofgivinginformedconsent has the
absolute right to accept or refuse [ECT]. . . . A patient who lacks substantial capacity to
make this decision may not be given [ECT] without a court order . . . .").
25 Cf. State v. Native Vill. of Nunapitchuk, 156 P.3d 389, 395-96 (Alaska
2007) ("The constitution . . . commits the enactment of all substantive law . . . to the
legislature, acting by an affirmative vote of the majority of each house." (citing Alaska
Const. art. II, § 14)).
26 138 P.3d 238, 242 (Alaska 2006).
27 AS 47.30.838(a).
-11- 7407
----------------------- Page 12-----------------------
statutory provisions" referenced, a court may order ECT for a "patient who lacks
28
substantial capacity" to decide whether to "accept or refuse [ECT]."
These provisions
plainly allow for court-ordered, non-emergency involuntary ECT. We therefore leave
to the legislature whether a treatment hierarchy generally should exist.
Having dismissed Lucy's two arguments for a heightened standard, we are
unpersuaded that the superior court made an "obvious mistake" by applying only the
protective Myers analysis - which the parties agreed applied - to this case.
B. The Superior Court Did Not Err By Determining That Involuntary
ECT Was The Least Restrictive Means To Advance The State's
Compelling Interest In Protecting Lucy.
As part of Lucy's overall challenge to the superior court's finding that
involuntary ECT was the least restrictive means to advance the state's compelling
interest in protecting her, she challenges the sufficiency of the court's best interests and
least intrusive alternative findings under Myers . She first faults the court's nearly
illegible, cursory written findings. But because the court also provided extensive oral
findings and conclusions of law at the commitment hearing, we analyze its oral
29
findings.
Lucyalso challenges thecourt'sultimatebestinterestsdetermination, arguing
that the court misweighed the factors.
We first explain why the Myers best interests and least intrusive alternative
determinations are mixed questions of fact and law and that we will review these
determinations by exercising our independent judgment. We then clarify our previous
decisions and discuss why express findings on each relevant, contested Myers best
28 AS 47.30.825(f).
29 See Noey v. Bledsoe , 978 P.2d 1264, 1276 (Alaska 1999) (concluding that
superior court "made detailed oral findings of fact and conclusions of law[, and b]ecause
its findings [were] sufficient to permit appellate review, further written findings and
conclusions were unnecessary").
-12- 7407
----------------------- Page 13-----------------------
interests factor are needed to ensure a patient's due process rights are protected and to
facilitate appellate review. We finally evaluate the superior court's findings regarding
both best interests andleastintrusivealternatives to determinewhether thecourt's factual
findings are clearly erroneous and whether, as a matter of law, the court erred in its
conclusions.
1. We exercise our independent judgment when reviewing the
superior court's best interests and least intrusive alternative
findings as part of its overall least restrictive means
determination.
Our fundamental holding in Myers was that, in light of the Alaska
Constitution's liberty and privacy guarantees, the existing statutory framework for non-
emergency,involuntary treatmentwith psychotropicmedications could beconstitutional
30
only if it were overlaid with certain patient protections.
Specifically, we held that
(1) before such treatment could be ordered, an independent judicial determination must
be made about (a) whether such treatment was in the patient's best interests, and
31
(b) whether any less intrusive alternatives exist; and (2) the appropriate standard of
32
proof for these determinations is clear and convincing evidence.
We emphasized in Myers that whether a patient's best interests are served
by involuntary treatment ultimately "presents a constitutional question," the answer to
which "must take the form of a legal judgment" hinging "on constitutional principles
30 138 P.3d at 245-52, 254; see Bigley v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst. , 208 P.3d
168, 180 (Alaska 2009) ("Under the standards we announced in Myers, constitutional
guarantees of liberty and privacy require the court to find by clear and convincing
evidence that the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication is in the best
interests of the patient and that no less intrusive alternative treatment is available.").
31 Myers, 138 P.3d at 250, 252.
32 Id. at 253.
-13- 7407
----------------------- Page 14-----------------------
33
aimed at protecting individual choice" rather than on medical expertise. In Bigley,
although we did not reach the moot best interests question, we stated that "[t]he inquiry
into whether there is a less intrusive alternative itself is a mixed question of fact and law"
and that the ultimate determination must be founded on an "evidence-based factual
34 In
inquiry" into the feasibility and efficacy of any proposed alternative treatment.
35
Kiva O. we stated that we review each inquiry as a mixed question of fact and law.
But we have done little to explore the nature of mixed questions of fact and
law in non-jury cases when the difference between underlying factual findings and
ultimate legal determinations is not clearly defined,36 and we therefore are left with the
question how to actualize review of these determinations. Sometimes we say broadly
that we review the superior court's factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions
37 Sometimes we say that we review the superior court's factual findings for
de novo.
33 Id. at 250.
34 208 P.3d at 185.
35 408 P.3d 1181, 1186 (Alaska 2018). We cited In re Hospitalization of
Jacob S., 384 P.3d 758, 763-64, 772 (Alaska 2016), for this proposition with respect to
the best interests determination, but it appears that in Jacob S. we actually treated both
determinations as questions of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard of
review. See id. at 769, 772.
36 Cf. Alaska R. Civ. P. 52. The Supreme Court has stated that the federal
version of Civil Rule 52 does not "furnish particular guidance with respect to
distinguishing law from fact." Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 466 U.S.
485, 501 (1984) (quoting Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 288 (1982)). And
federal Rule 52 "applies to findings of fact, including those described as 'ultimate facts'
because they may determine the outcome of the litigation." Id.
37 See, e.g., Lindbo v. Colaska, Inc., 414 P.3d 646, 651 (Alaska 2018)
(quoting Ben M. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 204
(continued...)
-14- 7407
----------------------- Page 15-----------------------
clear error but review de novo the application of those facts to the relevant articulated
38
law.
But these statements do nothing more than state the obvious when there is an
easily determinable difference between the underlying factual findings and the ultimate
legal determination. For example, if there is significantly defined law, a party might
assert on appeal that the superior court: (1) made erroneous underlying factual findings;
(2) applied the wrong law or wrongly characterized the correct law; or (3) wrongly
applied the correct law to the underlying factual findings. The first alleged error seems
one of fact, reviewed for clear error, while the latter two alleged errors seem legal,
reviewed de novo. This is not out of the ordinary fromtypical appellate review of factual
39
and legal determinations.
37 (...continued)
P.3d 1013, 1018 (Alaska 2009)); Joy B. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office
of Children's Servs., 382 P.3d 1154, 1162 (Alaska 2016) (quoting Sherry R. v. State,
Dep't of Health &Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 332 P.3d 1268, 1274 (Alaska
2014)); Brown v. Knowles, 307 P.3d 915, 923 (Alaska 2013) (quoting Dashiell R. v.
State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 222 P.3d 841, 849
(Alaska 2009)).
38 See, e.g., In re Hospitalization of Naomi B.,435 P.3d 918, 923-24 (Alaska
2019) (quoting Jacob S. , 384 P.3d at 763-64); Sherman B. v. State, Dep't of Health &
Soc. Servs.,Office of Children's Servs., 310 P.3d 943, 949 (Alaska 2013) (quoting M.W.
v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 20 P.3d 1141, 1143 (Alaska 2001)); Martin N.
v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 79 P.3d 50, 53
(Alaska 2003).
39 See generally HARRY T. EDWARDS & LINDA A. ELLIOTT, FEDERAL
STANDARDS OF REVIEW: REVIEW OF DISTRICT COURT DECISIONS AND AGENCY ACTIONS
7-9 (3d ed. 2018) (discussing fact/law paradigm and its limitations).
-15- 7407
----------------------- Page 16-----------------------
AstheUnitedStates SupremeCourt has recognized, "[m]ixed questionsare
40
not all alike."
A truly mixed question of fact and law appears when controlling law is
not so definitely defined, but rather involves abstract legal concepts "more akin to a
general guide for the exercise of considered judgment," so that the determination
41 "[T]hese rules generally
"generally def[ies] ready categorization as either law or fact."
acquire meaning, over time, through judicial application to the circumstances of
particular cases" and "may gain meaning through repeated judicial interpretation."42 In
this context theSupremeCourtappliesafunctional analysis, focusing primarily on which
court is in the best position to decide the issue.43 The Supreme Court has said:
A finding of fact in some cases is inseparable from the
principles through which it was deduced. At some point, the
reasoning by which a fact is "found" crosses the line between
application of those ordinary principles of logic and common
experience which are ordinarily entrusted to the finder of fact
into the realm of a legal rule upon which the reviewing court
must exercise its own independent judgment. Where the line
is drawn varies according to the nature of the substantive law
at issue. Regarding certain largely factual questions in some
areas of the law, the stakes - in terms of impact on future
40 U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n ex rel. CWCapital Asset Mgmt. LLC v. Vill. at
Lakeridge, LLC, 138 S. Ct. 960, 967 (2018).
41 EDWARDS & ELLIOTT, supra note 39, at 8.
42 Id .
43 Id . at 14 (citing Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 114 (1985)); see also Meyer
v. State, 368 P.3d 613, 6 19-20 (Alaska App. 2016) (considering "what the real-world
consequences would be if . . . appellate courts adopted a 'clearly erroneous' standard of
review versus a 'de novo' standard of review").
-16- 7407
----------------------- Page 17-----------------------
cases and future conduct - are too great to entrust them
finally to the judgment of the trier of fact. [44]
As noted above, some constitutional questions involve "stakes [that] . . . are too great"
for deferential review, thereby requiring more than the judgment of a single judge.45 In
these contexts the Supreme Court has stated that it "is not bound by the conclusions of
lower courts, but will reexamine the evidentiary basis on which those conclusions are
founded."46
For example, both we and the Supreme Court examine de novo the mixed
questions of law and fact presented by certain criminal probable cause and reasonable
suspicion determinations.47 The"principal components"ofthesedeterminations are"the
events which occurred leading up to the stop or search, and then the decision whether
these historical facts . . . amount to reasonable suspicion or to probable cause."48
The
second part of this analysis - whether the facts amount to reasonable suspicion or to
44 Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. , 466 U.S. 485, 501 n.17
(1984) (applying independent review to determine existence of actual malice in First
Amendment defamation action); see EDWARDS & E LLIOTT, supra note 39, at 8 (noting
de novo review is needed "when the interests at issue are deemed too important to trust
to the judgment of a single district judge constrained by 'the logistical burdens' of the
trial process, . . . but rather are thought better addressed through the 'reflective dialogue'
and 'collective judgment' characteristic of appellate courts" (quoting Salve Regina Coll.
v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 231-32 (1991))).
45 Bose Corp., 466 U.S. at 501 n.17.
46 Id. at 509-10 (quoting Time, Inc. v. Pape, 401 U.S. 279, 284 (1971)).
47 Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 697, 699 (1996); State v. Joubert,
20 P.3d 1115, 1119 (Alaska 2001).
48 Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 696.
-17- 7407
----------------------- Page 18-----------------------
49
probable cause - "is a mixed question of law and fact." The Supreme Court has stated
that independent appellate review is appropriate for this analysis because "the legal rules
for probable cause and reasonable suspicion acquire content only through application.
Independent review is therefore necessary if appellate courts are to maintain control of,
50 The Supreme Court reasoned that "de novo review
and to clarify, the legal principles."
tends to unify precedent and will come closer to providing . . . a defined 'set of rules.' "51
For similar reasons, this exacting de novo review standard applies in the
present context, particularly in light of our precedent regarding involuntary commitment
and medication declaring "Alaska's constitutional guarantee of individual liberty to be
more protective" than its federal counterpart.52 We therefore clarify that we will review
de novo the superior court's decisions and use our independent judgment to determine
whether, based on underlying factual findingsmadeby the superior court, there was clear
and convincing evidence that involuntary ECT was in Lucy's best interests and was the
49 Id.
50 Id. at 697.
51 Id. We similarly stated in Naomi B. that we will review involuntary
commitment cases despite their mootness because our opinions "will likely be useful as
guidance by analogy to future commitment proceedings . . . . [D]eclining review of
commitment appeals based on mootness effectively deprives trial courts of guidance on
how to apply the statutory requirements to the facts of individual cases." 435 P.3d 918,
928-29 (Alaska 2019).
52 See Myers v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 138 P.3d 238, 245 (Alaska 2006).
-18- 7407
----------------------- Page 19-----------------------
53
least intrusive available treatment. But we will review the underlying factual findings
involved in these inquiries for clear error.
2. The superior court properly considered and made findings
about the Myers-based best interests factors.
We held in Myers that superior courts "should consider" five statutorily
derived factors to determine whether involuntary psychotropic medication is in the "best
54 We said that "[c]onsidering these factors will be crucial in
interests of a patient."
establishing the patient's best interests."55 These mandatory factors are:
(A) an explanation of the patient's diagnosis and prognosis,
or their predominant symptoms, with and without the
medication;
(B) information about the proposed medication, its purpose,
the method of its administration, the recommended ranges of
dosages, possible side effects and benefits, ways to treat side
effects, and risks of other conditions, such as tardive
dyskinesia;
(C) a review of the patient's history, including medication
history and previous side effects from medication;
(D) an explanation of interactions with other drugs, including
over-the-counter drugs, street drugs, and alcohol; and
53 See id. at 250 ("[T]hough the [best interests] answer must be fully informed
by medical advice received with appropriate deference, in the final analysis the answer
must take the form of a legal judgment that hinges not on medical expertise but on
constitutional principles aimed at protecting individual choice.").
54 Id. at 252.
55 Id.
-19- 7407
----------------------- Page 20-----------------------
(E) information about alternative treatments and their risks,
[56]
side effects, and benefits, including the risks of nontreatment.
Although in Myers we did not explicitly state that superior courts must
make specific findings on each factor, we later noted in In re Hospitalization of
Gabriel C. - albeit in passing - that such findings are required: "We take th[e]
occasion to note that the superior court must expressly make or incorporate specific
findings on each of these best interests factors in a case where involuntary medication
is requested."57 But despite referring to the Myers factors, in Gabriel C. we actually
recited the favored, but not mandatory, "Minnesota factors."58
We recently clarified in In re Hospitalization of Naomi B. that our
Gabriel C. opinion "misquoted Myers as making the Minnesota factors mandatory" but
that it otherwise did "not alter the analytical framework established by Myers and
56 Id. (quoting AS 47.30.837(d)(2)).
57 324 P.3d 835, 840 (Alaska 2014).
58 Id. In addition to establishing the mandatory Myers factors, in Myers we
favorably referred to five factors that are "sensible" in a court's best interests
determination. These favored but not mandatory factors are:
(1) the extent and duration of changes in behavior patterns
and mental activity effected by the treatment;
(2) the risks of adverse side effects;
(3) the experimental nature of the treatment;
(4) its acceptance by the medical community of the state; and
(5) the extent of intrusion into the patient's body and the pain
connected with the treatment.
Myers, 138 P.3d at 252 (citing Price v. Sheppard, 239 N.W.2d 905, 913 (Minn. 1976)).
-20- 7407
----------------------- Page 21-----------------------
59
Bigley." We explained that the helpful Minnesota factors provide " 'sensible' guidance
in determining whether involuntary medication is in a patient's best interests, but they
are not a mandatory component of the analysis." 60
We now find it prudent to clarify and emphasize that superior courts must
make specific findings on relevant, contested mandatory Myers factors before ordering
61 Because consideration of the Myers factors ultimately
involuntary medication or ECT.
may allow a court to deny a patient's fundamental right to refuse psychotropic
medication or ECT,62 we emphasize the importance of such findings to both patient due
process and appellate judicial review.
In this case, Lucy specifically challenges the superior court's findings as
they relate to what really are the Minnesota factors. But, as noted above, the court's
considerations and findings under the Myers factors are dispositive. And on the facts of
this case, the court's considerations and findings relevant to what would be contested
Minnesota factors are encompassed within its findings relevant to contested Myers
factors. We therefore review only the court's consideration of Lucy's best interests
under the relevant, contested Myers factors. We note that appellate review generally
would benefit from a superior court specifically matching its best interests findings to
each respective Myers factor. But in this case the superior court's oral ruling adequately
reflects its various findings related to each Myers factor.
59 435 P.3d 918, 935 (Alaska 2019).
60 Id. (quoting Bigley v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 208 P.3d 168, 180-81
(Alaska 2009)).
61 See Alaska R. Civ. P. 52(a) ("In all actions tried upon the facts without a
jury . . ., the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law
. . . .").
62 Myers, 138 P.3d at 251-52.
-21- 7407
----------------------- Page 22-----------------------
a. Factor 1: explanation of the patient's diagnosis and
prognosis
The first Myers best interests factor requires the superior court to consider
"thepatient's diagnosis and prognosis, or their predominant symptoms, with and without
63
the medication."
The superior court explained that Lucy suffered from catatonia and
that she was "entirely unable to care for her basic needs." The court also considered both
psychiatrists' testimony and found that ECT would improve Lucy's condition because
it has a "80 to 90 percent response rate." The court also found expeditious ECT
necessary because Lucy could be lost: "I believe based on the facts that we have here . . .
her body is shutting down essentially that we may lose this young soul in the process
because of our failure to act."
Lucy argues the court's finding that she would die without ECT was clearly
erroneous. Shecontends testimony demonstrated that shewould die without intravenous
fluids and nutritional supplements, not that she would die without ECT. But as the State
argues, the court's statement that "we may lose this young soul" without ECT appears
to refer to losing Lucy to a permanent catatonic state, not death. The court earlier
referred to the psychiatrists' testimony and found that "what I'm hearing from the
doctors is the fact that . . . if something isn't done to deal with her situation and to alert
her to what's going on, we may lose her as an individual." The record supports this; the
Juneau psychiatrist testified that if untreated, Lucy's catatonia could be irreversible:
"The longer that you let catatonia go on, the harder it becomes to treat, and it becomes
more of a pervasive illness. And my fear for her is that she will essentially become
stuck, and we won't be able to reverse this." The Juneau psychiatrist further testified that
with ECT there was an 80% to 90% chance Lucy would improve, but that without ECT
63
Id. at 252.
-22- 7407
----------------------- Page 23-----------------------
her prognosis was "[e]xtremely poor," requiring a feeding tube and resulting in pressure
sores, pneumonia, or blood clots that could lead to further complications. The court's
factual finding that Lucy could be lost without treatment is thus supported by the record.
b. Factor 2: information about the proposed treatment
Second, the superior court must look to "information about the proposed
medication, its purpose, the method of its administration, the recommended ranges of
dosages, possible side effects and benefits, ways to treat side effects, and risks of other
64
conditions."
The court incorporated into its findings the testimony about how ECT
would beapplied to Lucy, explaining that ECTwasnecessary to counteract her catatonia,
that it would be administered in Fairbanks by a psychiatrist who had studied the
procedure with out-of-state specialists, that it would be administered for only 30 days
before requiring a renewed hearing, and that side effects could include muscular pain,
clenched jaw, and dental and cardiac issues. These findings are fully supported by the
testimonial record.
Lucy faults the superior court's findings for failing to consider "how many
times Lucy would need to be subjected to ECT to experience improvement in her
symptoms, or how long that improvement was likely to last." She argues that the court
failed to consider that if she regained capacity during or following the court-ordered
treatment, she might not consent to continuing ECT, and the long-term effects of the
treatment would not be realized.
These arguments are unpersuasive. The court did consider the duration of
Lucy's ECT by ordering ECT for 30 days and that "whether it's extended or not . . .
limits the amount of time in which the sessions can occur." Testimony was that patients
typically undergo two to three treatments a week, and that after three weeks of treatment
64 Id.
-23- 7407
----------------------- Page 24-----------------------
Lucy likely would experience "benefits that are sustained more than 24 hours." This is
correct under the statutory scheme upon which Myers is premised: The court could not
order medication beyond the commitment period without reviewing a renewed request
65
for such treatment.
And, as the State argues, whether Lucy would consent to further ECT if she
regained capacity is speculative. Lucy's conceded "history of noncompliance with
treatment recommendations following release" does not invalidate or contradict the
superior court's findings because any long-term treatment plan for her catatonia, not just
ECT, would require continued compliance with a treatment plan following release, as
evidenced by Lucy's prior treatment plans requiring continued psychotropic medication
prescriptions.
Lucy also argues that the court failed to consider potential memory and
cognitive impairment resulting from ECT. Although testimony noted claims of short-
term memory loss directly following the procedure, both physicians stated that memory
typically improves following ECT. Lucy additionally argues that the court erroneously
found "no evidence of death" as a potential ECT side effect. Testimony indicated that
ECT's potential side effects included an "approximately one in 10,000" chance of death,
as well as nausea, physical injuries (such as electrode burns or fractures from inadequate
sedation), and any side effects of the general anesthesia required before an ECT patient
undergoes the procedure. Anesthesia's risks include stroke, heart attack, and pulmonary
embolism. The court said there was "no evidence of death" after expressly considering
both ECT and anesthesia's potential side effects and weighing the pros and cons of
ordering ECT. The court said it gave "major deference" to the psychiatrists' testimony,
65 See AS 47.30.839(h) (requiring facility wishing to continue involuntary
medication administration after commitment period ends to "file a request to continue
the medication when it files the petition to continue the patient's commitment").
-24- 7407
----------------------- Page 25-----------------------
and clearly assessed the "one in 10,000" chance of death as negligible enough to find "no
evidence of death." And even if the court erred by failing to make more specific findings
on memory loss and evidence of the "one in 10,000" chance of death, any error is
harmless in light of the court's overall finding about side effects: "[T]he negatives are
far, far, far less than the positives."
c. Factor 3: review of the patient's history
Third, the superior court must "review . . . the patient's history, including
66
medication history and previous side effects from medication."
The court found that
Lucy previously had been given psychotropic medications but that each time "she's back
in [the] hospital again and again." Her previous treatment methods "ha[d]n't worked
sufficiently."
Lucy argues that the superior court "disregarded [her] prior history of
recovery and the likelihood that she would regain competency" and "disregarded Lucy's
history of treatment noncompliance and the possibility that she had been prematurely
dismissed." But these arguments are unavailing. The court considered Lucy's prior
history and treatment noncompliance, incorporating the doctors' testimony into its
findings and stating that "their concern is so heightened based on historical data and
based on this patient." The court stated, "I'm concerned that as each treatment module
ends, another begins, and the time between each is shorter and shorter . . . . [T]here's
nothing else available out there that has worked." The court also considered the
likelihood that Lucy would regain capacity, finding it "unlikely she [would] achieve
improvementwith onlytheadministration of[psychotropicmedication]." Thecourt thus
appropriately considered and made sufficient findings on Lucy's history, all supported
by the record.
66
Myers, 138 P.3d at 252.
-25- 7407
----------------------- Page 26-----------------------
d. Factor 4: interaction with other medications
Fourth, the superior court must consider "interactions with other drugs,
67
including over-the-counter drugs, street drugs, and alcohol."
The court found
necessary administering both ECTand psychotropic medications to Lucy. Lucy does not
contest the court's order for psychotropic medication or raise concerns about the
medication's combination with ECT.
e. Factor 5: information about alternative treatments
Finally,thesuperiorcourtmustconsider and makefindingson"information
about alternative treatments and their risks, side effects, and benefits, including the risk
68
of nontreatment." The court discussed potential alternatives, stating, "I thought about
perhaps delaying my decision . . . I don't think that's going to be the way to go in this
case." The court also discussed using only medication to treat Lucy, stating that "the
alternatives that have been suggested as continuation of . . . drugs have not been proven
to be successful in the past, and I doubt they'll be proven successful in the future." In
conformance with this factor, the court discussed Lucy's prior commitments and
treatments, found that she was not responding to the psychotropic medications she was
being given, and found that expeditiously administered ECT was her only real option.
The court thus appropriately considered and made findings about alternative treatments.
f. Conclusion regarding best interests
Lucy argues that the superior court's ultimate determination that ECT's
"negatives are far, far, far less than the positives" fails to properly weigh the Myers
67 Id.
68 Id .
-26- 7407
----------------------- Page 27-----------------------
69
factors. But Myers "does not dictate the weight the court gives" each factor.
Reviewing the underlying findings regarding Lucy's best interests, wehold that the court
considered all relevant, contested Myers best interests factors and that its factual findings
were not clearly erroneous. Taking those factual findings as true, we agree with the court
that ordering involuntary ECT was - by clear and convincing evidence - in Lucy's
best interests.
3. The superior court properly considered and found that
involuntary ECT was Lucy's least intrusive treatment option.
We next consider whether involuntary ECT was Lucy's least intrusive
treatment option. In Bigley we clarified that any proposed alternative "must actually be
available, meaning that it is feasible and would actually satisfy the compelling state
70
interests that justify the proposed state action." Lucy argues that other, less intrusive
alternatives were available to her; for example, the superior court could have extended
her commitment or authorized a different psychotropic medication. Lucy argues that the
superior court failed to consider treatment only with psychotropic medication before
ordering involuntary ECT. She states that the court should have waited another month
to see if psychotropic medication would work before considering ECT. She contends
that because she had regained capacity within a month during prior commitments, from
either medication or spontaneously, "the court should have considered what the
probability was that Lucy might regain competency during her 30-day commitment or
some time after so that she could be asked whether she wanted to submit to ECT."
But the superior court considered these options and explained their
rejection. The court considered whether to permit Lucy to remain on medication and
69 Kiva O. v. State, Dep't of Health &Soc. Servs. Office of Children's Servs.,
408 P.3d 1181, 1190 (Alaska 2018).
70 208 P.3d 168, 185 (Alaska 2009).
-27- 7407
----------------------- Page 28-----------------------
make the ECT determination at a later date: "I guess what the court can do is delay this
process for a period of time to see if [medications will] work. But my concern is that
each day we wait, each day [Lucy] may be get[ting] worse and that's what I hear from
this doctor. And the time span is collapsing."
The court's finding that Lucy's condition was unaffected by psychotropic
medication is supported by the record and not clearly erroneous. The Juneau psychiatrist
testified that the medication administered to Lucy during each prior catatonia
commitment was increasingly less effective, and that, in the week of her present
commitment, there had been no significant change in her condition, despite an increasing
dosage. The Juneau psychiatrist concluded that due to Lucy's historic and current lack
of response to the medication any significant improvement was "highly unlikely." The
Fairbanks psychiatrist agreed that psychotropic medication alone would not be sufficient
to improve Lucy's catatonic state.
The court's finding that Lucy's condition was quickly deteriorating and
required immediate action also is supported by the record and not clearly erroneous.
This was Lucy's third catatonic episode in six months; the longer this persisted, the more
likely it was that she would remain in a permanent catatonic state.
The superior court did not clearly err in its underlying findings regarding
whether involuntary ECT was Lucy's least intrusive treatment option. Taking those
factual findings as true, we agree with the court that - by clear and convincing
evidence - involuntary ECT was Lucy's least intrusive treatment option because
alternatives would not "actually satisfy the compelling state interests that justify the
proposed state action." 71
71 Id.
-28- 7407
----------------------- Page 29-----------------------
4. Summary and conclusion
The superior court considered and did not clearly err in its findings about
all relevant, contested Myers-based best interests factors, and we agree that ordering
involuntary ECT was in Lucy's best interests based on those factual findings. And the
superior court considered and did not clearly err in its findings about potentially lesser
intrusivealternativetreatmentoptions;becausepsychotropicmedication alonewould not
"actually satisfy the compelling state interests that justify the proposed state action," 72
we hold, as a matter of law, that the superior court did not err in its overall least intrusive
alternative determination. Because ordering involuntary ECT was both in Lucy's best
interests and the least intrusive treatment option available, we hold that it was the least
restrictive means to advance the state's compelling interest in protecting Lucy.
IV. CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the superior court's involuntary ECT order.
72 Id.
-29- 7407
 |
| Case Law Statutes, Regs & Rules Constitutions Miscellaneous |
|
