EARNEST HILLS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Earnest Hills, a forensic psychiatric patient charged with first-degree murder, appeals an emergency treatment order for forced medication. The court reverses the order, holding that the record lacks evidence that Hills' multidisciplinary treatment team deemed the forced treatment necessary as required by Florida law.
The court reversed the emergency treatment order, holding that the record lacked any evidence that Hills' treatment team deemed the forced treatment necessary or delegated the treatment decision to the physician as required by section 916.107(3).
[1] A patient's refusal of treatment deemed necessary by their multidisciplinary treatment team at a forensic facility may be overridden under specific circumstances outlined…
[2] For treatment to be administered over a forensic patient's objection, the record must demonstrate that the patient's multidisciplinary treatment team deemed the treatment…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“If a patient in a forensic facility refases such treatment as is deemed necessary by the patient's multidisciplinary treatment team at the forensic facility for the appropriate care of the patient and the safety of the patient or others, such treatment may be provided under the following circumstances....”
Establishes the statutory requirement that forced treatment must be deemed necessary by the patient's multidisciplinary treatment team
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHills resides on the forensic unit of a state psychiatric hospital and is charged with first-degree murder of his wife. He initially consented to trea…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
LAWRENCE, Judge.
Earnest Hills (Hills), a resident of the state psychiatric hospital, appeals an emergency treatment order. We reverse.
Hills resides on the forensic unit of the state hospital. (Hills is charged with the first-degree murder of his wife.) Hills initially consented to his treatment for bipolar disorder, but after treatment began, became violent and refused medication. Hills’ psychiatrist petitioned for, and the trial judge ordered, in a February 20,1997 order, emergency treatment for ninety days. The order is premised on section 916.107, Florida Statutes (1995).
Section 916.107 provides in relevant part: Rights of forensic clients.—
(3) RIGHT TO EXPRESS AND INFORMED CONSENT.—
(a) A person committed to the department pursuant to this act shall be asked to give express and informed written consent for treatment. “Express and informed consent” or “consent” means consent given voluntarily in writing after a conscientious and sufficient explanation and disclosure of the purpose of the proposed treatment, the common side effects of the treatment, if any, the expected duration of the treatment, and any alternative treatment available. If a patient in a forensic facility refases such treatment as is deemed necessary by the patient’s multidisciplinary treatment team at the forensic facility for the appropriate care of the patient and the safety of the patient or others, such treatment may be provided under the following circumstances....
(Emphasis added.) We held, in Meeker v. State, 584 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), applying section 916.107,1 that the evidence was not sufficient to show that a patient’s “treatment team” had deemed necessary the administration of the psychotropic drug mandated by the trial court’s order. The instant record, like that in Meeker, is devoid of any evidence that Hills’ treatment team deemed necessary or delegated to the physician the treatment decision mandated in the order under review.
We therefore reverse and remand for consistent proceedings.
KAHN and MICKLE, JJ., concur. . The language of subsection (3) remains the same as that interpreted in Meeker. Compare § 916.107, Fla. Stat. (1991) with § 916.107, Fla. Stat. (1995).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dinardo v. State, 742 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…iplinary team, that the patient has refused to give express and informed consent as defined in the statute, and that the trial court has considered at least the four factors specified in clauses ad of section 916.107(3)(a)3. See also Hills v. State, 706 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Moreland v. State, 706 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Simpson v. State, 704 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Below, the testimony of appellant’s attending psychiatrist, who was also a member of appellant’s treatment team, provid…
-
Ludwige Louisma v. State, 78 So. 3d 50 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…no reference to the multidisciplinary treatment team in the order or whether the team had deemed the treatment to be necessary as required by section 916.107, and such a finding could not be substantiated based upon record evidence); Hills v. State, 706 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (holding that record was devoid of any evidence that patient’s treatment team deemed necessary or delegated to the patient’s psychiatrist the treatment decision). Similarly, in Ungerbuehler v. State, 729 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1st DCA…
Authorities Cited
- Meeker v. State, 584 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)