Jarvis v. Levine, CX-84-2010

Decision Date19 March 1985
Docket NumberNo. CX-84-2010,CX-84-2010
Citation364 N.W.2d 473
CourtMinnesota Court of Appeals
PartiesHomer JARVIS, Appellant. v. Leonard W. LEVINE, Commissioner of Public Welfare, Respondent.

Syllabus by the Court

Evidence was sufficient to permit a finding by the supreme court appeal panel that transfer of appellant from the security hospital was inappropriate.

Charles H. Williams, Jr., St. Paul, for appellant.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Mary L. Stanislav, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, John M. Burman, Laramie, Wyo., for respondent.

Heard, considered and decided by POPOVICH, C.J., and RANDALL and CRIPPEN, JJ.

OPINION

CRIPPEN, Judge.

Homer Jarvis appeals the October 1984 denial by the supreme court appeal panel of his request for a transfer from the security hospital to the open hospital at Willmar. We affirm.

FACTS

Jarvis, a 50 year old man, was committed as mentally ill and dangerous to the St. Peter Security Hospital in 1977 after he shot and killed his sister. He has been diagnosed as paranoid and paranoid schizophrenic. Jarvis petitioned for a transfer to the open state hospital at Willmar. See Minn.Stat. Sec. 253B.18, subd. 5 (1984). In 1984, the special review board concluded transfer could not be accomplished with a reasonable degree of safety to the public. The board recommended denial of the petition for transfer, and the Commissioner of Human Services denied the petition. Jarvis then sought review of that decision by the three-judge supreme court appeal panel. See Minn.Stat. Sec. 253B.19 (1984).

A hearing was held by the appeal panel in September 1984. St. Peter staff psychologist Stan Johnson testified Jarvis has refused medication since May 1982, is frequently verbally abusive, and is physically violent. Johnson testified the treatment program designed to deal with Jarvis' anger and denial of his mental illness is ineffective because Jarvis refuses to cooperate or to participate in programmed activities. Jarvis complains that hospital staff are poisoning him and drugging him at night. He has made note of the license numbers of cars driven by staff members and threatened revenge. Johnson concluded continued commitment at the security hospital was needed to protect the safety of the public. At the time of the hearing, the security hospital was considering involuntary medication of Jarvis.

The appeal panel found that Jarvis is paranoid and suffers from a fixed persecutorial delusional system, and that he refuses medications and will not cooperate with treatment. The panel also found "a transfer to an open hospital setting could not be made with safety to others, would not be appropriate and that the Appellant continues to be in need of the facilities available at Minnesota Security Hospital." The transfer petition was denied. In an attached memorandum, the appeal panel noted Jarvis continues to be dangerous, hostile and uncooperative.

Involuntary administration of medication began in December 1984.

ISSUE

Whether the appeal panel properly denied appellant's petition for transfer to an open hospital?

ANALYSIS

A patient may not be transferred from "the Minnesota Security Hospital unless it appears to the satisfaction of the commissioner, after a hearing and favorable recommendation by a majority of the special review board, that the transfer is appropriate." Minn.Stat. Sec. 253B.18, subd. 6 (1984). The statute sets out the factors to be considered in ruling on a transfer petition:

(i) the person's clinical progress and present treatment needs;

(ii) the need for security to accomplish continuing treatment;

(iii) the need for continued institutionalization;

(iv) which facility can best meet the person's needs; and

(v) whether transfer can be accomplished with a reasonable degree of safety for the public.

Id.

The special review board found Jarvis had made little clinical progress, that he remained deluded and potentially dangerous, that treatment in a secure facility was still required, and that a transfer could not be accomplished with safety to the public. The review board was also "concerned that Mr. Jarvis is maintained at the Minnesota Security Board without any meaningful treatment." They noted "Mr. Jarvis might be an appropriate candidate for involuntary medication" and that he needed "to have predetermined realistic standards in the area of verbal abusiveness which he must meet in order to qualify for transfer."

The presiding judge of the appeal panel observed at the hearing that Jarvis' illness prevented him from cooperating in his treatment program and that refusal prevented his progress towards discharge or transfer. Involuntary administration of medications was expected to lessen Jarvis' hostility to the treatment program. The panel was informed that involuntary administration of anti-psychotic medications was under current consideration.

On...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Jarvis v. Levine, C2-86-1633
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • April 7, 1987
    ...propensity to not cooperate. (Emphasis supplied.) The appeal panel's decision was eventually affirmed by this court in Jarvis v. Levine, 364 N.W.2d 473 (Minn.Ct.App.1985). On December 6, 1984 (during pendency of the appeal in Jarvis v. Levine ), a fourth course of neuroleptic treatment was ......
  • In re Webber
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • March 18, 2019
    ...the evidence as if trying the matter de novo." Larson v. Jesson, 847 N.W.2d 531 (Minn. App. 2014) (citing Jarvis v. Levine, 364 N.W.2d 473, 474 (Minn. App. 1985) (quotation omitted); Piotter v. Steffen, 490 N.W.2d 915, 919 (Minn. App. 1992), review denied (Minn. Nov. 17, 1992)). This court ......
  • Larson v. Jesson
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • June 9, 2014
    ...as a whole sustains the appeal panels' findings” and not “weigh[ing] the evidence as if trying the matter de novo.” Jarvis v. Levine, 364 N.W.2d 473, 474 (Minn.App.1985) (quotation omitted); see also Piotter v. Steffen, 490 N.W.2d 915, 919 (Minn.App.1992), review denied (Minn. Nov. 17, 1992......
  • Gessell v. Jesson
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • November 28, 2011
    ...Feb. 24, 2010). Challenges to the appeal panel's findings of fact are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. Jarvis v. Levine, 364 N.W.2d 473, 474 (Minn. App. 1985). This court will not weigh the evidence as if trying the matter de novo, but must determine from an examination of the r......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT