Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the State's petition to involuntarily medicate L.A. The court held that, under Vermont's involuntary-medication statute, the State bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the person does not have a durable power of attorney for health care. The State failed to make a reasonable, good-faith inquiry because it contacted only L.A.'s former husband and did not investigate other known sources, such as prior health-care providers or adult children.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the State bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that a person subject to a petition for involuntary medication has not executed a durable power of attorney for health care.
- Whether the State made the reasonable, good-faith inquiry required to establish that L.A. had no durable power of attorney for health care.
Holdings
- The existence of a durable power of attorney for health care remains a threshold element of an involuntary-medication petition, and the State bears the burden of proving that element by clear and convincing evidence.
- The State did not satisfy the statutory threshold by asking L.A. twice and consulting only her former husband; it was required to make a reasonable, good-faith inquiry using known sources of information, including relevant family members and past medical providers.
Key quotations
“The trial court was correct that, notwithstanding the Hargrave decision, whether a durable power of attorney exists is still a threshold question on which the State carries the burden of proof.” (247)
“All the trial court required, however, was a "reasonable good faith inquiry" to meet the threshold showing.” (247)
Factual background
L.A. had a long history of schizoaffective disorder, hospitalizations, and treatment, and she refused medication while committed to the Vermont State Hospital. She had lived independently in the community for approximately five years, had a former husband who handled some of her affairs when she was unwell, and had two adult children in Colorado. The State initially asked L.A. twice whether she had a durable power of attorney, and after the first denial was told to investigate known family members and medical providers. At the second hearing, the State contacted only L.A.'s former husband, accepted his statement that she had no durable power of attorney without further investigation, and did not contact her prior health-care providers or children.
Procedural history
L.A. had been committed to the Vermont State Hospital for ninety days. The trial court twice denied the State's petition for involuntary medication because the State failed to produce sufficient evidence that it had made a reasonable inquiry into whether L.A. had executed a durable power of attorney for health care. The State appealed from the second denial, and the Supreme Court of Vermont affirmed.