WILLIAM GREGGORY MARKHAM
v.
NORTH FLORIDA EVALUATION AND TREATMENT CENTER
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.
Testimony by a treating psychiatrist that the treatment team was 'in agreement' with the proposed medication protocol constitutes sufficient evidence of multidisciplinary team approval required by section 916.107(3)(a), Florida Statutes.
[1] An appellate court is not bound by a confession of error and may decline to accept it.
[2] An appellate court will not accept erroneous concessions of error by the state.
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“a confession of error is not binding upon an appellate court, and it is the practice of the appellate courts not to accept erroneous concessions by the state”
The court declined to accept the appellee's concession of error, citing Perry v. State, 808 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
William Greggory Markham appealed a circuit court order authorizing medical treatment at North Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center. A psychiatrist…
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 Medical Treatment Authorization cases and more on FLexlaw
June 28, 2018 PER CURIAM.
We treat Appellee’s “response” to the initial brief as a confession of error. However, we decline to accept the concession, and we affirm. See Perry v. State, 808 So. 2d 268, 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (a confession of error is not binding upon an appellate court, and it is the practice of the appellate courts not to accept erroneous concessions by the state) (citations omitted).
Appellant argues that this case is controlled by Ungerbuehler v. State, 729 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), in which this Court reversed an order authorizing medical treatment, finding that the state presented “absolutely no evidence that the multidisciplinary team deemed the treatment to be necessary, as
2
required by section 916.107(3)(a), Florida Statutes.” Id. at 954. This Court found that the only person to testify, the psychiatrist, “did not indicate that she spoke on behalf of the multidisciplinary team, nor was there testimony that the psychiatrist had discussed the necessity of medication with the treatment team.” Id. at 955. In contrast, here, after testifying that he was requesting multiple medications for use in treating Appellant, and that Appellant would be observed for side effects and treated accordingly, the psychiatrist testified that the treatment team was “in agreement” with “this protocol.” We find that this testimony is sufficient to support the lower tribunal’s order.
ROWE, KELSEY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Levory W. Hickmon v. Rachel Bushey Reese, P.A., 275 So. 3d 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
-
Zurich Am. INS. Co. v. Samson, 331 So. 3d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Perry v. State, 808 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Collier v. State, 729 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Ungerbuehler v. State, 729 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)