Opinion
1 CA-MH 22-0060
02-23-2023
IN RE: TRAVIS C.
The Law Office of David B. Loder, Wickenburg By David B. Loder Counsel for Appellant Yavapai County Attorney's Office, Prescott By Benjamin D. Kreutzberg Counsel for Appellee
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County No. P1300MH202000012 The Honorable Michael P. McGill, Judge
The Law Office of David B. Loder, Wickenburg By David B. Loder Counsel for Appellant
Yavapai County Attorney's Office, Prescott By Benjamin D. Kreutzberg Counsel for Appellee
Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court, in which Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass and Judge Maurice Portley joined.
The Honorable Maurice Portley, Retired Judge of the Court of Appeals, Division One, has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant to Article 6, Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
FURUYA, JUDGE
¶1 Appellant Travis C. ("Patient") appeals the superior court's order committing him for mandatory mental health treatment under Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") §§ 36-541(B) and -540(C). He argues he was wrongfully denied a physical examination by Yavapai County's evaluating agency ("Agency"). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Yavapai County's evaluation agency at the time was Pronghorn Psychiatry. Yavapai County now retains a different provider, but that change is not germane to this appeal.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Patient was admitted to Windhaven Psychiatric Hospital ("Windhaven") in May 2022. Patient had previously received court-ordered treatment but the order lapsed. The Agency filed a Petition for Court-Ordered Evaluation pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-523 in May 2022, alleging Patient was persistently or acutely disabled and refusing voluntary treatment. According to the Petition and Application for Court-Ordered Evaluation, Patient had "a long history of mental illness and psychiatry hospitalizations," Patient was "determined [seriously mentally ill]," under A.R.S. § 36-550(4), and two evaluating physicians diagnosed him as Schizoaffective Bipolar during prior treatment proceedings.
¶3 Finding reasonable cause to believe Patient was persistently or acutely disabled, the superior court ordered the Agency to perform a non-custodial evaluation in June 2022. The court subsequently conducted a hearing to determine whether Patient should undergo court-ordered treatment. At the hearing, two evaluating physicians testified and their affidavits were admitted. Both physicians' affidavits described their respective psychiatric evaluations of Patient, their diagnoses, and their conclusions that Patient is persistently or acutely disabled. The affidavits also included the statement that each physician had "examined [Patient] and studied information about said person." Both evaluating physicians diagnosed Patient as Schizoaffective Bipolar.
¶4 Following the hearing, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that Patient was persistently or acutely disabled and in need of psychiatric treatment. Patient was ordered to undergo a combined inpatient and outpatient treatment program. Patient timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under Arizona Constitution Article VI, § 9 and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), -2101, and 36-546.01.
DISCUSSION
¶5 On appeal, we "will affirm an involuntary treatment order if it is supported by substantial evidence." In re M.H. 2007-001236, 220 Ariz. 160, 165 ¶ 15 (App. 2008). We will not set aside the superior court's findings unless they are clearly erroneous or unsupported by the evidence. Maricopa Cnty. Mental Health No. MH 94-00592, 182 Ariz. 440, 443 (App. 1995). Although we review the underlying facts in the light most favorable to upholding the superior court's judgment, we must strictly construe the statutory requirements because involuntary commitment "strongly implicates a patient's liberty interests." In re MH2015-003266, 240 Ariz. 514, 515 ¶ 7 (App. 2016).
¶6 Patient argues the Agency's evaluations failed to comply with statutory requirements for court-ordered treatment because neither evaluating physician performed a physical examination. Patient alleges both physicians' affidavits are "completely silent" as to any physical examination and one physician only observed Patient by video. Patient's argument is unavailing for two reasons. First, the record for this appeal is incomplete. Patient's failure to file transcripts prevents us from undertaking any meaningful review. Patient, thus, waived the argument. Cont'l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, 227 Ariz. 382, 386 ¶ 12 (App. 2011). Second, waiver aside, A.R.S. § 36-533 no longer requires a physical examination before an order for mental health treatment unless it is relevant to the patient's condition. See A.R.S. § 36-533(B).
I. Patient's Argument Is Waived on Appeal.
¶7 Arguments not raised at the superior court are waived on appeal. Cont'l Lighting, 227 Ariz. at 386 ¶ 12. Appellants must include in the record any transcripts from superior court proceedings "necessary for proper consideration of the issues on appeal." Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. ("ARCAP") 11(c)(1)(A). If an appellant fails to include necessary superior court transcripts in the record, "we assume they would support the court's findings and conclusions." Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 1995).
¶8 The transcript of Patient's hearing before the superior court is absent from the record on appeal. "[W]e are unable to determine the validity of an appellant's contention when we cannot review the evidence [or arguments] upon which the appellant relies." In re Colton P., 242 Ariz. 437, 439 ¶ 11 (App. 2017). We must assume the transcripts support the superior court's findings and its order mandating treatment. See Baker, 183 Ariz. at 73; ARCAP 11. And, because the record otherwise lacks any arguments challenging the sufficiency of Patient's evaluations, the arguments are waived on appeal. Cont'l Lighting, 227 Ariz. at 386 ¶ 12.
II. The Agency's Evaluations Were Sufficient under the Current Version of A.R.S. § 36-533.
¶9 A petition for court-ordered mental health treatment must "be accompanied by the affidavits of the two physicians who participated in the evaluation" of the patient, including descriptions of the physicians' observations of the patient, a summary of facts supporting the petition's allegations, and "the results of the physical examination of the patient if relevant to the patient's psychiatric condition." A.R.S. § 36-533(B).
¶10 Here, the two evaluating physicians' affidavits contain the necessary components outlined in A.R.S. § 36-533(B), including their own observations and factual summaries. See generally id. The record does not show that the hearing was conducted in violation of statutory requirements. See A.R.S. § 36-539(B).
¶11 Patient argues the evaluating physicians' examinations were statutorily deficient because the record lacks mention of any physical examination and one physician only observed Patient over video. But the current version of A.R.S. § 36-501 contains no such "physical examination" requirement. As presently constituted, the statute provides that an "evaluation" in this context "may include firsthand observations or remote observations by interactive audiovisual media." A.R.S. § 36-501(13)(a). Thus, even assuming arguendo that no physical examination had been conducted, the Arizona Legislature amended § 36-501 in 2012 in such a manner that it no longer requires physical examination of a patient if it would be irrelevant to the patient's condition. See, e.g., A.R.S. § 36-533(B); In re Daniel G., 1 CA-MH 21-0028, 2022 WL 518231, at *4 ¶ 24 (Ariz. App. Feb. 22, 2022) (mem. decision) (finding no physical examination was required where patient's condition was "not a result of any physical condition and c[ould] only be treated with medication").
¶12 Here, Patient made no argument (and the record does not demonstrate) that a physical examination would have been relevant to his mental health condition. Therefore, we conclude that the statutory requirements were met in Patient's case and the treatment order is supported by sufficient evidence.
CONCLUSION
¶13 We affirm.