REGINALD VAUGHN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges an order authorizing medical treatment without his consent, for a period of time while he was confined in the Florida State Hospital by commitment pursuant to chapter 916, Florida Statutes. Although purporting to authorize treatment in accordance with section 916.107(3), Florida Statutes, the order is inadequate in this regard as it does not comport with the minimal requirements delineated in Meeker v. State, 584 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
The court made findings by recitation of the statutory language of section 916.107(3)(a)3 in the challenged order, without any indication of the factual circumstances or evidence which would substantiate these findings. As in Meeker, such concluso-ry findings cause the order to be facially insufficient. Furthermore, the court made no reference to the appellant’s multidisciplinary treatment team in the order, or whether the team had deemed the treatment to be necessary as required by section 916.107(3)(a). And again as in Meeker, such a finding could not be substantiated in the present case upon the record evidence.
The appealed order is therefore reversed.
ALLEN, WEBSTER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dinardo v. State, 742 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…a Statutes (1997), including evidence that the appellant’s multidisciplinary treatment team deemed the authorized treatment necessary, we affirm. In affirming, we distinguish Meeker v. State, 584 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and Vaughn v. State, 705 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).1 In both Meeker and Vaughn, we reversed orders authorizing involuntary treatment under chapter 916 because the record in each case failed to contain evidence substantiating compliance with the statutory requirement that the trea…1 / 2
-
Ludwige Louisma v. State, 78 So. 3d 50 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…elled pursuant to the statute, supra, is treatment “deemed necessary by the treatment team. ” We are unable to find in the record here any compliance in form or substance with that requirement. Id. at 170 (emphasis added). See also Vaughn v. State, 705 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (holding that treatment order’s conclusory findings failed to comport with the requirements delineated in Meeker where the lower court made no reference to the multidisciplinary treatment team in the order or whether the team had…
-
Moreland v. State, 706 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…orida Statutes (Supp.1996), we conclude that the order is inadequate for failure to satisfy the minimum statutory requirements delineated in Meeker v. State, 584 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Accordingly, we reverse the order. See Vaughn v. State, 705 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). The appellant was a “forensic patient” committed to Florida State Hospital pursuant to chapter 916, Florida Statutes, after being found incompetent to proceed to trial. Although the appellant was discharged from the Florida St…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Meeker v. State, 584 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)