In the Interest of: D.L.D.

Summary

This dissenting opinion addresses whether sufficient evidence supported extending D.L.D.’s involuntary outpatient mental health treatment under Pennsylvania’s Mental Health Procedures Act. The dissent concludes that D.L.D.’s history of medication noncompliance, decompensation, and dangerous behavior established by clear and convincing evidence a reasonable probability of serious harm absent continued treatment, and would affirm the trial court’s order.

Holdings

1. The sufficiency of evidence supporting an involuntary commitment is reviewed by examining the facts of record in the light most favorable to the original decision-maker to determine whether the requisite standard of proof was met.
2. The dissent would hold that the County established by clear and convincing evidence that D.L.D. remained a clear and present danger to himself and that there was a reasonable probability of death, serious bodily injury, or serious physical debilitation within 30 days without continued treatment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the County presented sufficient evidence under the Mental Health Procedures Act to establish that D.L.D. continued to be a clear and present danger to himself.
2. Whether the evidence clearly and convincingly established a reasonable probability that D.L.D. would die, sustain serious bodily injury, or suffer serious physical debilitation within 30 days if involuntary outpatient treatment were discontinued.
3. What standard governs appellate review of the sufficiency of evidence supporting an involuntary commitment under the Mental Health Procedures Act.

Disposition

reversed