Schmidt, Matter of

• Decision Date: 28 July 1989
• Docket Number: No. C4-88-2593,C4-88-2593
• Parties: In re the Matter of Everett SCHMIDT.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 824

443 N.W.2d 824

In re the Matter of Everett SCHMIDT.

No. C4-88-2593.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 28, 1989.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 31, 1989.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Minn.Stat. Sec. 253B.03, subd. 6a (1988), by providing procedures preliminary to the administration of neuroleptic medications in the treatment of incompetent, mentally ill patients, does not facially violate the patient's right to privacy guaranteed by the Minnesota Constitution.

2. An involuntarily committed incompetent mentally ill patient in a state treatment center is not deprived of any due process rights of notice, hearing, or to counsel by the procedures enumerated in Minn.Stat. Sec. 253B.03, subd. 6a (1988), regulating the administration of neuroleptic medications.

Rudy, Prevost, Gassert, Yetka, Korman & Belfry, K. Scott Belfry, Cloquet, for appellant.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., James A. Alexander, Sp. Asst., Beverly Jones Heydinger, Asst., St. Paul, for respondent.

Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc.

OPINION

KELLEY, Justice.

Appellant Everett Schmidt, a resident at the Moose Lake Regional Treatment Center, claims that Minn.Stat. Sec. 253B.03, subd. 6a (1988), a statute governing the administration of neuroleptic medication to mentally ill persons committed to state hospitals, impermissibly infringes on the privacy and due process rights guaranteed to him by the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Minnesota. Following a Jarvis hearing, ¹ the Carlton County District Court issued an order authorizing the administration of neuroleptic medication and an order declaring that the statute violated neither appellant's right to privacy nor his due process rights. We granted accelerated review pursuant to Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 118. We now affirm.

Appellant, a 71-year-old patient, has resided in a state hospital or nursing homes since the age of 19 years. In June 1988, he was committed to the Moose Lake Regional Treatment Center from the Carlton Nursing Home following an incident of physical aggression directed toward another patient.

In 1988, following our decision in Jarvis v. Levine, 418 N.W.2d 139 (Minn.1988) the legislature amended Minn.Stat. Sec. 253B.03 to add subdivision 6a providing procedures to be employed in the administration of neuroleptic medication to mentally ill committed persons. ² In September 1988, the medical director of the Moose Lake Regional Treatment Center sought an order appointing a guardian ad litem with authority to consent to the administration of neuroleptic medications to appellant Schmidt pursuant to that subdivision. By counter motion appellant challenged the constitutionality of the statute. Although the trial court initially appointed a guardian ad litem, the original appointment did not authorize the guardian to consent to the neuroleptic medication. Later, following the Jarvis hearing, the court did issue an order authorizing the administration of the medication, and, in doing so, rejected appellant's challenge to the constitutionality of the statute.

Appellant, here, as he did below, asserts that because the statute fails to afford to him the right to an adversarial court hearing and the right to counsel, it circumvents the guidelines this court established in Price v. Sheppard, 307 Minn. 250, 239 N.W.2d 905 (1976) and Jarvis, 418 N.W.2d 139. Because those guidelines were promulgated to ensure against impermissible state invasion of his constitutional right to privacy, and to also reaffirm a patient's due process rights, he argues that the amendment, as the result of the omission, facially infringes upon his constitutional rights.

Before addressing the constitutional issues appellant seeks to raise, we must first determine whether we have jurisdiction to hear this case. As indicated, basic to appellant's constitutional challenge is his assertion that the statute deprives him of right to counsel and the claimed right to an adversarial court hearing. In his case, however, at all stages, appellant has, in fact, been represented by counsel, and did receive a Jarvis type adversarial hearing in the trial court. Therefore, the issues raised may be moot, and thus, not subject to review.

Well established in this state's jurisprudence is the precept that the court will decide only actual controversies. If the court is unable to grant effectual relief, the issue raised is deemed to be moot resulting in dismissal of the appeal. State ex rel. Lezer v. Tahash, 268 Minn. 571, 128 N.W.2d 708 (1964). Moreover, the court does not issue advisory opinions, nor decide cases merely to establish precedent. Sinn v. City of St. Cloud, 295 Minn. 532, 203 N.W.2d 365 (1972). Although neither party in this case raised the question of mootness, that failure, of itself, does not eliminate the issue. As a constitutional prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdiction, we must consider the mootness question even if ignored by the parties. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Barry, 438 U.S. 531, 537, 98 S.Ct. 2923, 2927, 57 L.Ed.2d 932 (1978).

Notwithstanding this aversion to consideration of moot questions, appellate courts have carved out an exception provided the issue is "capable of repetition yet evading review." During oral argument, both parties in the instant case claimed that the facts of this case bring the constitutional issues, which appellant seeks to raise, within the scope of this limited exception. When deemed appropriate, this court has applied the exception. See Elzie v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 298 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Minn.1980); Davis v. Davis, 297 Minn. 187, 188, 210 N.W.2d 221, 223 n. 1 (1973). However, the mere fact that the issue is capable of repetition, of itself, does not necessarily trigger application of the exception. State ex rel. Doe v. Madonna, 295 N.W.2d 356, 360 (Minn.1980). See also Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 89 S.Ct. 1493, 23 L.Ed.2d 1 (1969).

Because at all stages appellant has been afforded an adversarial court hearing while represented by counsel, we acknowledge that the mootness issue is extremely close. However, notwithstanding the presence of some doubt, we recognize that the challenged statute undoubtedly will be utilized by state hospital authorities in attempting to treat other mentally ill committed patients by neuroleptic medication, and, therefore, actions taken pursuant to the statutes of which this appellant complains, are capable of repetition--even with respect to treating this appellant himself. Moreover, should we decline jurisdiction in this case, review of the constitutionality of the statute could be evaded by others in the future by simply affording a patient a Jarvis type hearing whenever the constitutionality of the statute is challenged by a patient's attorney. For these reasons, we hold that under the limited exception, we do have jurisdiction to decide the constitutional challenges raised by the appellant in this case.

At the outset, we note that, as in any case involving a constitutional challenge to a statute, the statute bears a presumption of validity. State v. Hamm, 423 N.W.2d 379, 380 (Minn.1988); Essling v. Markman, 335 N.W.2d 237, 239 (Minn.1983); State on Behalf of Forslund v. Bronson, 305 N.W.2d 748, 751 (Minn.1981). A party challenging the constitutionality of the statute has the onus of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute violates a claimed right. Hamm, 423 N.W.2d at 380; Essling, 335 N.W.2d at 239; Forslund, 305 N.W.2d at 751.

Since at least 1976, we have recognized that "intrusive" forms of medical treatment of mentally ill patients may seriously infringe upon a committed mental patient's right to privacy--or the concept of "personal autonomy"--under the federal constitution. See Price v. Sheppard, 307 Minn. 250, 256-58, 239 N.W.2d 905, 910-911 (1976). In State v. Gray, 413 N.W.2d 107 (Minn.1987), we acknowledged a right to privacy which includes the right to be free from its invasion by the state without consent under the Minnesota Constitution's Bill of Rights. Id. at 111. And in Jarvis, 418 N.W.2d 139, 147-49, after careful analysis of the legal and psychiatric literature relative to the subject, we specifically held that under Minnesota Constitution, art. 1, Secs. 1, 2 and 10, the involuntary administration of neuroleptics involves such an "intrusive" invasion of privacy as to require substantially the same procedural protections delineated for electro shock therapy in Price. ³ We address the constitutional issues raised by appellant in the instant case solely under the Minnesota Constitution, which may afford mentally ill involuntarily committed patients greater privacy and due process procedural protections than does the federal constitution. See Jarvis, 418 N.W.2d at 148-49.

Comparison of the 1988 amendment, which added subdivision 6a to Minn.Stat. Sec. 253B.03, with the constitutionally guaranteed procedural protections as adopted and set out in Price and Jarvis demonstrates that the amended statute facially provides to the patient, in substance, a procedure which protects the patient from the exercise of sole unrestrained discretion of the medical personnel at our state hospitals with respect to the use of such invasive procedures. The statute, therefore, attempts to address the concerns we expressed in Price--that the imposition of an intrusive form of treatment, such as this, must not rest solely in the discretion of the medical personnel at the state institution. Price, 307 Minn. at 262, 239 N.W.2d at 913. Because we conclude the amendment provides a procedural framework which substantially addresses those concerns we expressed in Price and Jarvis, we hold that facially the statute violates neither the involuntarily committed patient's right to privacy nor due process under article 1--the Bill of Rights--of the Minnesota Constitution.

Appellant's constitutional challenge to the amendment focuses primarily on Minn.Stat. Sec. 253B.03, subd. 6a(c) (1988) which...