People v. Torry G. (In re Torry G.)

Decision Date18 July 2014
Docket NumberNo. 1–13–0709.,1–13–0709.
PartiesIn re TORRY G., Alleged to be a Person Subject to Involuntary Medication (People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner–Appellee, v. Torry G., Respondent–Appellant).
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Laurel Spahn, of Illinois Guardianship & Advocacy Commission, of Hines, for appellant.

Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Assistant State's Attorney, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

Justice TAYLOR

delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Respondent Torry G. appeals the trial court's order that he be administered involuntary psychotropic medication.

¶ 2 Torry was hospitalized in January 2013 and diagnosed with bipolar disorder

and psychosis. On March 7, 2013, the trial court entered an order authorizing the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication to Torry for a period of 90 days. Torry now appeals that order. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Torry is a 21–year–old who has exhibited signs of mental illness for the past four years. He was admitted to Westlake Hospital on January 1, 2013, having consented to voluntary admission. On January 15, 2013, Torry's treating psychiatrist, Dr. Richard Goldberg, filed a petition to involuntarily administer psychotropic medication to Torry pursuant to section 2–107.1 of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code (Code) (405 ILCS 5/2–107.1 (West 2012)

). The primary medications listed in the petition were Tegretol and Zyprexa, and the alternative medications were Depakote, fluphenazine hydrochloride, fluphenazine decanoate, Invega, Invega Sustenna, Haldol, and Haldol decanoate.

¶ 5 Prior to the hearing on the petition, Torry's counsel filed a motion for a pretrial conference which stated the following:

Respondent Torry G. has stressed to counsel that he would like to resolve this matter without a trial, and has requested that his treating psychiatrist (Dr. Goldberg) find the most appropriate medication to treat bipolar disorder

with the least possible risk of side effects (Respondent has had side effects from the mood stabilizers Lithium and Depakote in the past).”

This motion was never ruled upon, and no pretrial conference was held.

¶ 6 At the hearing on the involuntary-medication petition, Dr. Goldberg testified that Torry was suffering from bipolar disorder

, manic phase, with psychosis. He stated that Torry had been suffering from mental illness for the past four years. Over that time period, he had been hospitalized 20 to 25 times,1 including 4 separate times between October 8, 2012, and January 1, 2013. Dr. Goldberg opined that Torry's condition had deteriorated over time since April 2011, when he originally examined him. Regarding Torry's most recent hospitalization, Dr. Goldberg testified that when he was brought to the hospital, he was in an “exacerbated manic state.” He stated that Torry's mother described him as “a captive or a prisoner in his own head” and believed that he “desperately” needed to be hospitalized. He further stated, [Torry's mother] was pleading with me to make sure [Torry] gets forced medication.” (Torry's mother did not testify at the hearing.)

¶ 7 Dr. Goldberg then described Torry's symptoms. He stated that Torry had “grandiose delusions

,” such as the belief that the purpose of the hearing was to try Dr. Goldberg for “crimes against patients” and that once Torry testified against him, Dr. Goldberg would be sent to jail. While in the hospital, Torry had exhibited sexually provocative and inappropriate behavior, such as attempting to make eye contact with female peers, sending them love letters, and, on one occasion, hugging a female peer without permission. He also believed that he had powers to heal women sexually by touching them. In addition, he displayed impulsive, agitated, and aggressive behavior.

¶ 8 Dr. Goldberg testified that Torry had told him repeatedly that he did not have a mental illness. He stated, “Our sessions are mostly Torry turning things around and making it about me and how I'm the bad person and I do bad things.” As a result, Dr. Goldberg said, there was no opportunity to have therapeutic interaction about the behaviors that had caused his hospitalization.

¶ 9 Dr. Goldberg said that on several occasions, he had attempted to talk to Torry about the risks, benefits, and side effects of medication. However, [i]t became apparent that he really just doesn't understand the need for the medication and there's no point in belaboring the matter.” Dr. Goldberg opined that Torry did not have the capacity to make a reasoned judgment about taking medication because he did not believe he had an illness and did not appreciate the deterioration he was exhibiting as a result of his illness.

¶ 10 According to Dr. Goldberg, Torry claimed to be willing to take medication voluntarily, but on multiple occasions when Dr. Goldberg suggested specific medications, Torry refused. Dr. Goldberg stated that he believed that Torry was only willing to take medication with no side effects, and no such medication actually existed. For instance, three weeks prior to the hearing, Dr. Goldberg suggested to Torry that he take the drug Tegretol

, a mood stabilizer used in the treatment of bipolar disorder (and one of the medications listed in the instant petition). Torry refused to take it, because he was concerned that the drug would cause him to have suicidal thoughts. Dr. Goldberg admitted that suicidal thoughts were a listed side effect of the drug, but he stated that they were a rare side effect and that if Torry experienced any suicidal thoughts, the medicine would be stopped at once. Nevertheless, Torry continued to refuse to take the drug. Dr. Goldberg concluded, [Torry] has not been able to focus on the benefits. He can only focus on what he believes are the potential risks, which are often illogical or unfounded or—I think it serves his desire, as has been the case for years now, which is not taking medication.”

¶ 11 Dr. Goldberg further testified that in his opinion, less restrictive alternatives to forced medication, such as group therapy and psychotherapy, were not appropriate for Torry, because he had never responded to therapy in a constructive or successful way. He stated that Torry's prognosis without medication was poor because he had displayed a pattern of progressive deterioration that Dr. Goldberg believed would continue, perhaps dangerously.

¶ 12 During cross-examination, counsel for Torry asked Dr. Goldberg about Invega

and fluphenazine, two of the medicines that he sought to have administered to Torry. Dr. Goldberg admitted that Invega had not been approved for treatment of bipolar disorder. However, he said that Invega was the parent compound of the drug Risperdal, which was approved for treatment of bipolar disorder, “so there's no reason Invega can't be.” As for fluphenazine, Dr. Goldberg admitted that it was in the same category as the drug Thorazine, which Torry had been given during his time at Westlake. Torry's Thorazine treatments had been discontinued because Torry experienced orthostatic hypotension.2 Dr. Goldberg stated that hypotensive side effects were “not uncommon” with Thorazine

but would be rare with Fluphenazine.

¶ 13 Torry testified in opposition to the petition. He stated that “this all got started” when he was 17 and took marijuana that was laced with the hallucinogen PCP. He was hospitalized and taken to a psychiatric ward for evaluation. He was also given psychotropic medication. “I did not have the right to decline medicine because I was a minor,” he said, “so I was experiencing these side effects and I didn't have the right to say no, I don't want to take these medicines.” Before that incident, Torry said, he had never been in a hospital overnight. He said that his teachers had called him a “brilliant” student, and he received A grades when he made the effort to obtain them.

¶ 14 Torry then testified about the side effects that he had experienced as a result of psychotropic medication. He stated that he had been taken to the emergency room twice because of side effects. In one incident, he had headaches induced by the drug lithium

that were severe enough that he was given morphine and had to have a spinal tap. In the other incident, he “fell over” while at outpatient treatment. Additionally, while in the hospital under Dr. Goldberg's care, he had muscle spasms that caused him to fall on the floor. He could not remember exactly which medications he was on at the time, because he was on more than four medications. Finally, regarding the medications that Dr. Goldberg requested for him in his petition, Torry stated that he had taken Depakote before. He testified that the drug made him restless and unable to sleep, and it also caused him to talk to himself and exhibit other “bizarre behavior.”

¶ 15 Torry's counsel asked him whether he was opposed to taking medication for treatment of his mental illness. Torry replied that he was not concerned about minor side effects of medication, such as constipation or weight gain, but he was concerned about severe side effects, such as suicidal or homicidal thoughts. “I'm against those deadly side effects,” he said, “because I would like to say this in the courtroom, some of those medicines that these doctors use, I see infomercials all the time saying you take this medicine or are you taking this medicine, you have a lawsuit.” He testified that he would be willing to take safe, reliable medication that he would not need to get switched from. He also stated that he was “100 percent” willing to participate in outpatient services.

¶ 16 Regarding his own mental condition, Torry stated, “I can't say that I have full-blown bipolar, but I do realize that I had symptoms of bipolar, which I believe some of the symptoms were from certain medicines I received.” He stated that he also had some...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • People v. Marcus S. (In re Marcus S.)
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 18. Januar 2022
    ...215, 702 N.E.2d 555 (1998) (quoting Vitek v. Jones , 445 U.S. 480, 491, 100 S.Ct. 1254, 63 L.Ed.2d 552 (1980) ); see also In re Torry G. , 2014 IL App (1st) 130709, ¶ 31, 384 Ill.Dec. 91, 16 N.E.3d 187 ("Autonomous decisionmaking in matters affecting the body and mind is one of the most val......
  • People v. Marcus S. (In re Marcus S.)
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 18. Januar 2022
    ...215, 702 N.E.2d 555 (1998) (quoting Vitek v. Jones , 445 U.S. 480, 491, 100 S.Ct. 1254, 63 L.Ed.2d 552 (1980) ); see also In re Torry G. , 2014 IL App (1st) 130709, ¶ 31, 384 Ill.Dec. 91, 16 N.E.3d 187 ("Autonomous decisionmaking in matters affecting the body and mind is one of the most val......
  • People v. Rob W. (In re Rob W.)
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 25. Oktober 2021
    ..."one of first impression which, as a matter of substantial public concern, is in need of an authoritative determination"); In re Torry G. , 2014 IL App (1st) 130709, ¶ 28, 384 Ill.Dec. 91, 16 N.E.3d 187 (finding a "need for an authoritative interpretation of the matter, since no Illinois ca......
  • People v. Robert M. (In re Robert M.)
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 28. Februar 2020
    ...some medications voluntarily is a " ‘less restrictive’ " treatment within the meaning of the statute is a question of law. In re Torry G. , 2014 IL App (1st) 130709, ¶ 33, 384 Ill.Dec. 91, 16 N.E.3d 187. We will therefore consider that question de novo .¶ 38 C. Suffering ¶ 39 Robert first a......
  • 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