Linder v. Commissioner of Human Services

4 Citing cases

  1. Rydberg v. Goodno

    689 N.W.2d 310 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that because a discharge decision under Minn. Stat. § 253B.19, subd. 2, requires clear and convincing proof by those objecting, so, too, should a decision on pass-eligible status

    Next, the commissioner argues that the burden for one opposing pass-eligible status should not be clear and convincing. He contends that the clear and convincing standard applies to discharges because they involve a liberty interest. Minn.Stat. 253B.19, subd. 2; Linder v. Com'r. of Human Servs., 394 N.W.2d 824, 826 (Minn.App. 1986). In contrast he asserts that pass-eligible status, like transfer, is a form of treatment and that the preponderance of the evidence standard should apply.

  2. Foster v. Jesson

    857 N.W.2d 545 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 22 times
    Clarifying that when the appeal panel sits as trier of fact and renders judgment in written findings, we review those findings for clear error

    Preponderance of the evidence was the common law standard previously applied to transfer requests under commitment statutes. See Linder v. Comm'r of Human Servs., 394 N.W.2d 824, 827 (Minn.App.1986). In evaluating whether a petitioner has demonstrated the appropriateness of transfer by a preponderance of the evidence, “[t]he panel must address the statutory factors.”

  3. Coker v. Ludeman

    775 N.W.2d 660 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 23 times
    Dismissing for lack of timely service of petition on respondent's counsel

    In its conclusions of law, the appeal panel stated that "[t]he statute and case law require that the party seeking a transfer must prove that the transfer is appropriate by a preponderance of the evidence," citing Plotter v. Steffen, 490 N.W.2d 915 (Minn.App. 1992), review denied (Minn. Nov. 17, 1992), and hinder v. Comm'r of Human Servs., 394 N.W.2d 824 (Minn.App. 1986). But Linder and Plotter predate the 1994 amendment to Minn. Stat. § 253B.19, subd. 2, and do not fully state the requirements of the subsequent statute.

  4. Piotter v. Steffen

    490 N.W.2d 915 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 45 times
    Holding appeal panel was clearly erroneous in approving transfer, where it ignored "vast weight" of evidence provided by hospital treatment personnel in favor of evidence from court-appointed examiner, patient, and patient's wife

    The petitioner has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Linder v. Commissioner of Human Servs., 394 N.W.2d 824, 827 (Minn.App. 1986). The order of the appeal panel supersedes the order of the Commissioner.