Opinion
A21-0105
06-21-2021
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Brock M Bollig.
ORDER OPINION
Crow Wing County District Court
File No. 18-PR-20-3843
Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Frisch, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Crow Wing County petitioned to have Brock Bollig civilly committed and to involuntarily administer neuroleptic medications following reports that Bollig believed he was possessed by demons who were "taking over and want[ed] him dead." Minn. Stat. §§ 253B.07, subd. 2, .092, subd. 2 (2020). A referee of the district court presided over the hearings on both petitions, Minn. Stat. § 484.70, subd. 1 (2020), and granted the county's requests over Bollig's objections, Minn. Stat. §§ 253B.09, subd. 1, .092, subd. 8 (2020).
2. On appeal Bollig challenges his civil commitment and the district court's approval for the administration of neuroleptic medications without his consent. We review de novo whether sufficient evidence supports the district court's conclusion that a person meets the standards for commitment, In re Thulin, 660 N.W.2d 140, 144 (Minn. App. 2003), and we review factual findings for clear error, In re Knops, 536 N.W.2d 616, 620 (Minn. 1995). Bollig does not contend that the district court did not have a sufficient basis to grant both of the county's petitions, but he maintains that it improperly permitted a judicial referee to preside over the petitions without informing him of his right to object.
3. We decline to address the merits of Bollig's arguments. He concedes that he never objected to having a judicial referee decide the civil-commitment and neuroleptic-medication petitions. We generally will not consider issues that were not argued to or considered by the district court. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988). But we may do so if the party issue is dispositive of the entire controversy and neither party is disadvantaged by the lack of a ruling in the district court. Freundschuh v. Freundschuh, 559 N.W.2d 706, 709 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Apr. 24, 1997). Bollig's challenge does not meet this standard. By failing to object to the matters being decided by a judicial referee, Bollig forfeited the opportunity for our review.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Dated: June 21, 2021
BY THE COURT
/s/_________
Kevin G. Ross