JULIUS SMITH, 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.
The court held that competent, substantial evidence was not presented to show the patient's multidisciplinary team discussed and approved the necessity of the recommended treatment plan.
[1] An order requiring a forensic patient to accept involuntary psychotropic treatment must be supported by evidence that the multidisciplinary team discussed and approved th…
[2] Competent, substantial evidence is required to sustain an appellate review of an order for involuntary psychotropic 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 intelligenceA patient appealed an order adopting a magistrate's report recommending involuntary treatment. The psychiatrist testified about the treatment team and…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Competent Substantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
The patient appeals an order adopting the magistrate’s report and recommendation on the mental health facility’s petition for involuntary treatment. We reverse because competent, substantial evidence was not presented that the patient’s multidisciplinary team had discussed and approved the necessity of the recommended treatment plan.
To sustain on appellate review an order requiring a forensic patient to accept *859involuntary psychotropic treatment under section 916.107(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2012), there must be “at least some evidence that the multidisciplinary team has discussed and approved the necessity of treatment.” Troutman v. State, 112 So.3d at 638, 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (citation omitted). In Troutman, this court concluded, “the treatment center did not present competent, substantial evidence that the patient’s multidisciplinary treatment team discussed and approved the treatment plan.” Id at 639. This court found, regarding the psychiatrist’s testimony, that “[e]ven assuming this testimony referenced a discussion with the treatment team’s other members, the psychiatrist did not testify that the other team members approved of the necessity of the recommended treatment.” Id.
In this case, the psychiatrist testified that a treatment team was established and a treatment plan was devised for the purpose of restoring mental health and competency. The psychiatrist listed the members of the team, and testified that there was a second concurring doctor with respect to the treatment plan (who was not listed as being on the team). The psychiatrist never testified that the other members of the multidisciplinary team approved of the necessity of the treatment plan. As in Troutman, “[t]hus, the circuit court’s order must be reversed for a further hearing at which the treatment center may present evidence of the treatment team’s discussion and approval of the treatment plan.” Id.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
MAY, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chapman v. State, 133 So. 3d 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…lan.” However, the physician did not testify that the treatment team approved the treatment plan or deemed it necessary and essential. Thus, no competent, substantial evidence exists to show compliance with section 916.107(3)(a). See Smith v. State, 117 So. 3d 858, 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“The psychiatrist never testified that the other members, of the multidisciplinary team approved of the necessity of the treatment plan”); Troutman v. State, 112 So. 3d 638, 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) ([“T]he psychiatrist did…
-
Delmus Rogers v. State, 138 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…all treatment plan members is not required, in order to establish compliance with section 916.107(3)(a), “there must be ‘at least some evidence that the multidisciplinary team has discussed and approved the necessity of treatment.’ ” Smith v. State, 117 So. 3d 858, 858-59 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Troutman v. State, 112 So. 3d 638, 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)). Here, the treatment team physician stated that a treatment team was established and a treatment plan was devised for the purpose of restoring competen…