Wolf, Matter of, C2-91-870
| Decision Date | 26 June 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. C2-91-870,C2-91-870 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Gerald W. WOLF. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
A chemically dependent patient's refusal to cooperate with treatment does not render an otherwise appropriate treatment facility incapable of meeting the patient's needs.
Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Atty., Gayle C. Hendley-Zappia, Asst. County Atty., Minneapolis, for appellant.
Thomas Bennett Wilson, III, Wilson Law Firm, Edina, for respondent.
Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc.
The state appeals from a decision of the court of appeals which held that under Minn.Stat. Sec. 253B.09, subd. 1 a chemically dependent person who refuses all treatment may not be involuntarily committed because no facility or program is capable of meeting the patient's needs. We reverse.
The facts are undisputed. Respondent has been admitted to the Hennepin County Detoxification Center 226 times, including 47 times from February 1990 to February 5, 1991. During that period, he spent about half of the year in the detoxification center. Respondent has no permanent address; when he is not in the detoxification unit, he stays at the home of relatives or friends. Respondent has no job or property; his sole source of support is public assistance. Respondent's admissions to detox have been at his own request, at the initiative of police officers or occasionally by referral from a hospital emergency room. Respondent has attended various chemical dependency treatment programs in the past, either voluntarily or through commitment, but has not successfully completed any of them. He previously has been committed to the Fergus Falls center and four times left without authorization. He testified and told doctors that he would leave again if committed. After his commitment to Fergus Falls in this case, respondent refused to cooperate and was provisionally discharged on May 16, 1991. 1
This case arose after police brought respondent to the Hennepin County detoxification unit on February 5, 1991. On February 6, the state petitioned the district court to have respondent involuntarily committed. On February 12, respondent underwent a court-ordered examination, in which the examiner found that in the previous month respondent had missed appointments for medical treatment of a skin graft where he had suffered a burn. At trial, respondent testified that the injury was healing and that he had not needed medical attention since January 13. Asked what he wanted to do, respondent testified: "I just want to be free, back on the street." He said the only help he wants is to get to the detox unit if he gets drunk and cannot make it back to wherever he is staying. The trial court committed respondent to Fergus Falls, which recently has added a locked unit. The court of appeals reversed, prompting this appeal.
Judicial commitments are governed by Minn.Stat. Sec. 253B.09, subd. 1 (1990), which provides:
If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed patient is a mentally ill, mentally retarded, or chemically dependent person and * * * that there is no suitable alternative to judicial commitment, the court shall commit the patient to the least restrictive treatment program which can meet the patient's treatment needs consistent with section 253B.03, subdivision 7 []. In deciding on the least restrictive program, the court shall consider a range of treatment alternatives including, but not limited to, community-based nonresidential treatment, community residential treatment, partial hospitalization, acute care hospital, and regional treatment center services. The court shall also consider the proposed patient's treatment preferences and willingness to participate in the treatment ordered. The court may not commit a person to a facility or program that is not capable of meeting the patient's needs.
The legislature has defined a chemically dependent person as:
any person (a) determined as being incapable of self-management or management of personal affairs by reason of the habitual and excessive use of alcohol or drugs; and (b) whose recent conduct as a result of habitual and excessive use of alcohol or drugs poses a substantial likelihood of physical harm to self or others as demonstrated by (i) a recent attempt or threat to physically harm self or others, (ii) evidence of recent serious physical problems, or (iii) a failure to obtain necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical care.
Minn.Stat. Sec. 253B.02, subd. 2 (1990). Applying these statutes, the trial court found that respondent is a chemically dependent person, unable to manage his affairs by reason of habitual and excessive use of alcohol. The court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blodgett, In re
...seems somewhat incongruous that a sexual offender should be able to prove he is untreatable by refusing treatment. Cf. Matter of Wolf, 486 N.W.2d 421, 424 (Minn.1992) (A confirmed alcoholic refusing all treatment may be involuntarily committed; "[r]espondent may never agree to be treated, b......
-
Johnson v. Holder
...or not the State is providing treatment"); Hubbart v. Superior Court, 19 Cal. 4th 1138, 1166, 969 P.2d 584, 602 (1999); Matter of Wolf, 486 N.W.2d 421, 423 (Minn. 1992).Claim 5 Plaintiff asserts that the opening and inspection of all mail ingoing and outgoing violates his 4th and 5th Amendm......
-
In re McCaskill
...have involved issues capable of repetition yet evading review. See In re Blilie, 494 N.W.2d 877, 880-81 (Minn. 1993); In re Wolf, 486 N.W.2d 421, 422 n. 1 (Minn.1992); In re Schmidt, 443 N.W.2d at 826; In re Peterson, 360 N.W.2d 333, 335 (Minn.1984); In re D.M.C., 331 N.W.2d 236, 237 (Minn.......
-
Blodgett, In re
...that an habitual sex offender refuses to engage in therapy or treatment does not render the commitment unconstitutional. See In re Wolf, 486 N.W.2d 421 (Minn.1992). Blodgett has been offered treatment on several occasions but refused it or failed to complete programs. There was conflicting ......