CopyCited 15 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...§
30.24(2)(b) (“independent contractors” transporting
prisoners “shall be solely liable for the prisoner while the prisoner is in the custody of the
company”), id. §
394.462(1)(c) (“independent contractor” transporting patients “is solely liable
for the safe and dignified transport of the patient”), and id. §
916.107(10)(c) (“independent
contractor” transporting clients is “solely liable for the safe and dignified transportation of the
client”), with id....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 41, 2009 WL 18712
...mpetent to proceed and that the criteria for commitment were met. The court entered another order committing Abreu for treatment. In February 2008, Abreu filed his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in circuit court. This is permissible under section 916.107(9)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), which permits a forensic client detained in a facility to challenge the detention through a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 124082
...atutes (1997). Because the Department was not given notice of the proceedings in the trial court, the Department has not had an opportunity to address this claim, and we do not reach it now. For the same reason we express no opinion on the effect of section 916.107, Florida Statutes (1997), or the decision in Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 323491
...The experts agree that he suffers from senility and that there is no treatment that will improve the condition. Nothing in chapter 916 requires that a treatment for the mental illness, in the sense of a restoration of competency, be available before a defendant may be involuntarily committed. Section 916. Section 916.107(4), relating to quality of treatment, provides: Each patient committed pursuant to this chapter shall receive treatment suited to his needs, which shall be administered skillfully, safely, and humanely with full respect for his dignity and personal integrity....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 93822
...nst h[er]. §
916.12(1), Fla. Stat. (1991). [3] A person actually "detained by a facility ... may petition for a writ of habeas corpus to question the cause and legality of such detention and request that the circuit court issue a writ for release." §
916.107(9), Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 180, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 405, 2010 WL 958075
...individuals who have received services from substance abuse service providers. §
397.501(7), Fla. Stat. (x) Identifying information in clinical records of detained criminal defendants found incompetent to proceed or acquitted by reason of insanity. §
916.107(8), Fla....
...dividuals who have received services from substance abuse service providers. §
397.501(7), Fla. Stat. _____ Identifying information in clinical records of detained criminal defendants found incompetent to proceed or acquitted by reason of insanity. §
916.107(8), Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 1586980
...im. The issue posed is whether a defendant who has been determined incompetent to stand trial may be detained in jail longer than the fifteen days allowed by section 916.017(1)(a), Florida Statutes. All of the affected parties are before this court. Section 916.107(1)(a), which contains a "bill of rights" for forensic detainees, provides that a jail may be used as an emergency facility for up to 15 days from the date the department receives a completed copy of the commitment order containing the...
...We recognize that in State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Maxwell,
667 So.2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), this court reversed an order holding the department in contempt for failing to move an incompetent defendant from the county jail to an appropriate facility within the fifteen-day period specified in section
916.107(1)(a)....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1035, 1996 WL 60504
...This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court holding the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) in contempt for failing to move an incompetent defendant from the county jail to a state licensed facility within a 15 day period. See § 916.107(1)(a), Fla.Stat....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...Nothing in the record before this court suggests that DCF has not been diligent within its limited resources to see that the petitioners' needs are met. Certiorari granted; order of the circuit court quashed. BLUE, C.J., and GREEN and DAVIS, JJ., Concur. NOTES [1] Section 916.107(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2001), concerns placement of adults adjudicated incompetent pending criminal prosecution and requires that county jails may be utilized as holding facilities pending placement for no more than fifteen days.
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...utory responsibility. Chapter 916, Florida Statutes, is entitled the "Forensic Client Services Act." §
916.105, Fla. Stat. (1991). Portions of this chapter might just as easily be dubbed a "mentally ill defendants' bill of rights." See particularly §
916.107, Fla....
...(1991). This chapter, whose last substantial revision occurred in 1985, [5] applies both to patients committed as incompetent to stand trial, and those acquitted of criminal charges by reason of insanity. §
916.106(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (1991). In subsection
916.107(4), the legislature has specifically dictated that "each patient committed pursuant to this chapter shall receive treatment suited to his needs," including "such medical, vocational, social, educational, and rehabilitative services as his condition requires to bring about an early return to his community." The legislature has also specified at least two methods for judicial implementation of these goals. Section
916.107(11), inapplicable here, authorizes a suit for damages against "[a]ny person who violates or abuses any rights or privileges of a patient provided by this act." Section
916.107(9) confers the right of a patient (extending to a guardian, representative, friend, and parties similarly situated) to petition for habeas corpus....
...ion. The court relied upon advice from experts who appear to have operated with HRS approval. Valid reasons existed to select the private hospital over the option preferred by HRS particularly if "early return to [the] community," the language at section 916.107(4), is a primary legislative objective regardless how much weight is given to Maxwell's "estoppel" argument....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 3499149
...Authority" of Florida. The department and the Agency for Health Care Administration shall exercise executive and administrative supervision over all mental health facilities, programs, and services. §
394.457(1), Fla. Stat. (2006)(emphasis added). Section
916.107, Florida Statutes (2006), states as follows: (1) RIGHT TO INDIVIDUAL DIGNITY. (a) The policy of the state is that the individual dignity of the client shall be respected at all times and upon all occasions, including any occasion when the forensic client is detained, transported, or treated....
...ay be an emergency facility for up to fifteen days following the date the department or agency receives a completed copy of the court commitment order containing all documentation required by the applicable Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. . . . § 916.107(1)(a), Fla....
...* * * *20 (4) QUALITY OF TREATMENT. (a) Each forensic client shall receive treatment or training suited to the client's needs, which shall be administered skillfully, safely, and humanely, with full respect for the client's dignity and personal integrity. . . . § 916.107(4)(a), Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 2389922
...Everette's case was called for its annual hearing. At the hearing, the trial court appointed two expert witnesses to evaluate Mr. Everette, and directed the Department *120 to transport Mr. Everette for the evaluations. The Department objected, arguing that pursuant to section 916.107(10), Florida Statutes, the County Sheriff is responsible for transporting Mr....
...3D04-2366). The Department seeks a writ of certiorari from both Orders. Although Everette was involuntarily committed pursuant to section
393.11, Florida Statutes, which does not provide any guidance regarding transportation of the "client," we find that section
916.107(10), Florida Statutes, governs the transportation issue in the instant case. Specifically, section
916.107(10), provides: The sheriff shall consult with the governing board of the county as to the most appropriate and cost-effective means of transportation for forensic clients committed for treatment or training.... After such consultation with the governing board of the county, the sheriff shall determine the most appropriate and cost-effective means of transportation for forensic clients committed for treatment or training. §
916.107(10)(a), Fla....
...n acquitted of a felony offense by reason of insanity; (c) Who has been determined by the department to: 1. Be dangerous to himself or herself or others;. . . ." §
916.106(7), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Thus, contrary to the dissent's suggestion, section
916.107(10)(a), Florida Statutes, does apply in the instant case....
...Accordingly, we find that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in placing the responsibility to transport Mr. David Everette from Marianna, Florida, to Miami, Florida, for court-appointed expert evaluations on the Department of Children & Families. Section 916.107(10), Florida Statutes (2004), which governs transporting forensic clients, places the transportation responsibility on the Sheriff. § 916.107(10)(a), Fla....
...motion. The department never filed a written motion to order the sheriff provide for Everette's transportation, a motion which presumably would have been served on the sheriff. II. LEGAL ANALYSIS Both the majority opinion and the petitioner rely on section 916.107(10)(a), Florida Statutes, to find fault in the trial court's order directing the department to transport Everette to Miami, Florida....
...d evaluations. Everette's counsel was justifiably worried that if the sheriff transports Everette, he would end up at the Dade County Jail pursuant to an Eleventh Judicial Circuit Administrative Order. The trial court thought that this would violate section 916.107(1)(a), which states that "a jail may be used as an emergency facility for up to 15 days from the date the department receives a completed copy of the commitment order ..." [5] As Everette was committed on December 18, 1996, the fifteen days have passed....
...person involuntarily admitted to residential services who was within the county when the proceedings commenced and was transported out of this jurisdiction after the court had ordered his evaluation. The basic problem with the majority's reliance on section 916.107(10) is that this statute does not apply to Everette and has not applied to him since 1996, when the state dismissed the criminal charges pending against him....
...[2] This statute repeatedly refers to "residential services" under section
393.11. [3] "Forensic client" is defined under section
916.106(7), Florida Statutes, as "any defendant...." The majority assumes without discussion that Everette is a forensic client. [4] Section
916.107(10)(b), Florida Statutes, states that "[t]he governing board of each county is authorized to contract with private transport companies for the transportation of such clients to and from a facility." [5] The department has been known to disregard this statute....
...State,
854 So.2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), where five defendants had to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus seeking their release from the Palm Beach County Jail because the department had failed to take custody of them within fifteen days of commitment as mandated by section
916.107(1)(a)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 1676769, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7546
...Kearney,
814 So.2d 462, 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (only the committing court has jurisdiction to entertain habeas petition challenging legality of involuntary commitment). Mr. Lewis does not adequately present any of his “bill of rights” claims in *382 his initial brief. See §
916.107, Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 414, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 1573, 2011 WL 2637473
...dividuals who have received services from substance abuse service providers. §
397.501(7), Fla. Stat. _____ Identifying information in clinical records of detained criminal defendants found incompetent to proceed or acquitted by reason of insanity. §
916.107(8), Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...[3] *990 The trial court consistently ordered the DCF to immediately place the defendant in a forensic facility and provide treatment in the jail pending that placement. This is the section of the order that serves as the focus of these proceedings. The DCF argues that part of the trial court's order effectively amends section 916.107(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006), by directing the DCF to provide mental health services to forensic clients while in county jail....
...at cannot be remedied on appeal. Belair v. Drew,
770 So.2d 1164, 1166 (Fla. 2000). The DCF's argument is two-fold. First, it argues the trial court's order departed from the essential requirements of the law by effectively and impermissibly amending section
916.107....
...This section clearly states that the DCF "is responsible for the treatment of forensic clients who have been determined incompetent." Each of these defendants has been determined incompetent; therefore, the Department of Children and Family Services is responsible for their treatment. Nevertheless, the DCF argues that section 916.107(1)(a) eliminated any mandate to provide treatment to these clients by employing the word "may." That section now provides: Clients with mental illness, retardation, or autism and who are charged with committing felonies shall receive appropriate treatment or training....
...provider for *992 mental health services, by the developmental program for persons with retardation or autism, the client's physician or psychologist, or any other appropriate program until the client is transferred to a civil or forensic facility. § 916.107(1)(a), Fla....
...Neither does the order constitute a demand for the DCF to enter into contractual obligations for these services. The order therefore avoids any violation of the separation of powers doctrine. See Dep't of Children & Families v. Morrison,
727 So.2d 404, 405-06 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The DCF next suggests that section
916.107(1)(a) should supercede the responsibility imposed by section
916.106(7)....
...Progressive Se. Ins. Co.,
753 So.2d 80, 84 (Fla.2000) ("Where possible, courts must give effect to all statutory provisions and construe related statutory provisions in harmony with one another."). We agree with the trial court's finding that the amendment to section
916.107(1)(a) merely provided options as to who can provide treatment; it did not eliminate the DCF's responsibility for providing it....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17332, 2001 WL 1671346
...o the Department of Children and Family Services to be placed in a mental health treatment facility. Petitioner challenged the legality of his involuntary commitment by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Broward circuit court under section 916.107(9)(a), Florida Statutes (2001). A prior version of section 916.107(9)(a) has been interpreted to require that such a challenge be made by habeas petition filed in the circuit court in the county where the defendant is being detained....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2007 WL 1836953
...cure facility pursuant to section
916.303(2)(b) of the Florida Statutes (2004), Everette is therefore a "forensic client" under chapter 916 of the Florida Statutes whose transportation is to be coordinated by the sheriff according to the dictates of section
916.107(10), Florida Statutes (2004)....
...11, after the dismissal of the criminal charges against him, his placement in a secure facility was pursuant to chapter 916, and, therefore, he was a forensic client under section
916.106(7), Florida Statutes (2004) and his transport was governed by section
916.107(10)....
...opportunity to be heard before deciding that the sheriff was responsible for Everette's transportation. Therefore, we quash the decision of the Third District below and remand for further proceedings. Everette Is Not a Criminal Defendant Subject to Section
916.107(10) In addition to failing to join the sheriff as a necessary party, the Third District below also erred in holding that the sheriff is responsible for transporting Everette under section
916.107(10) of the Florida Statutes. The dissenting opinion of Judge Ramirez below accurately expresses why this section is inapplicable in the instant matter. See Everette,
911 So.2d at 123 (Ramirez, J., dissenting). Section
916.107(10) is part of chapter 916 of the Florida Statutes, which addresses the treatment of mentally deficient and mentally ill defendants....
...when the criminal charges against him were dismissed and he was involuntarily committed to residential services pursuant to section
393.11 of the Florida Statutes. As Everette is currently a civilly committed person, the transportation provision of section
916.107(10) is inapplicable to him, and the sheriff is not responsible for his transportation....
...Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Everette's continued placement in a secure facility after the criminal charges against him were dismissed has been effected and continued pursuant to chapter 916. Accordingly, his transportation would also be governed by the provisions of chapter 916, and, pursuant to section 916.107(10), the sheriff would be the party responsible for coordinating the transportation at issue under the particular circumstances of the instant dispute. See § 916.107(10), Fla....
...y from those provided under chapter 393. Compare §
393.13(4)(a)(2), Fla. Stat. (2004) (providing reasonable opportunity to place confidential phone calls), and §
393.13(4)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. (2004) (providing unrestricted right to visitation), with §
916.107(5)(c), Fla. Stat. (2004) (directing facilities to establish reasonable policies with regard to visitation and telephone communication); see also §
916.107(8)(a)-(b), Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 316, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6429
...District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. January 23, 1987. Michael K. Reilly, Pro. Per. Peggy Sanford, Hospital Legal Counsel, Florida State Hospital, Chattahoochee, for appellee. *41 PER CURIAM. This cause is before us on appeal from final orders entered pursuant to Section 916.107(3), Florida Statutes (1985), authorizing treatment and approving the continuation of treatment to be administered to appellant [1] without his express and informed consent. We must reverse because there was no determination made below that "the treatment not consented to is not experimental and does not present an unreasonable risk of serious, hazardous, or irreversible side effects" as required by Section 916.107(3). Section 916.107(3)(a)3 provides, in pertinent part with emphasis added, the following: At the hearing on the issue of whether the court should enter an order authorizing treatment for which a patient has refused to give express and informed consent,...
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 5426
...The appellant challenges an order authorizing medical treatment without his consent, for a period of time while he was confined in the Florida State Hospital by commitment pursuant to chapter 916, Florida Statutes. Although purporting to authorize treatment in accordance with section
916.107(3), Florida Statutes, the order is inadequate in this regard as it does not comport with the minimal requirements delineated in Meeker v. State,
584 So.2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The court made findings by recitation of the statutory language of section
916.107(3)(a)3 in the challenged order, without any indication of the factual circumstances or evidence which would substantiate these findings....
...As in Meeker, such conclusory findings cause the order to be facially insufficient. Furthermore, the court made no reference to the appellant's multidisciplinary treatment team in the order, or whether the team had deemed the treatment to be necessary as required by section 916.107(3)(a)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 3795613
...as soon as possible or I will have to file the appropriate motion in front of Judge Gary. On August 29, 2006, the circuit court entered an order to show cause why DCF should not be held in contempt and requiring DCF to explain why it had not complied with section 916.107(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006), which requires respondent to be placed in a health treatment facility....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11421, 2010 WL 3037262
...each, for respondent. PER CURIAM. We grant Brandon Pangburn's petition for writ of habeas corpus. Pangburn is currently in jail awaiting placement in a residential treatment program. No authority has been identified to support his detention. Compare § 916.107(1), Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 434797
...Perlin, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant. Lawrence F. Kranert, Jr., Legal Counsel, Florida State Hospital, Chattahoochee, for appellee. *736 ON APPELLANT'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE PER CURIAM. Earnest Hills appeals a final order approving treatment pursuant to section 916.107(3), Florida Statutes. By unpublished order, we previously denied appellee's motion to dismiss, in which it was argued that the trial court's order was nonfinal and not otherwise appealable since, under section 916.107(3), it was only effective for a period of 90 days, and appellee could once again petition to continue treatment once the term of treatment authorized by the order on appeal expired....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 3326300, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13556
...Morgan had been committed after he was found not guilty by reason of insanity. He claims that it was not shown by competent substantial evidence that his multidisciplinary team deemed the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication necessary and essential as required by section 916.107, Florida Statutes (2011). The state argues that the issues in this case are res judicata because they were decided in a prior petition for order authorizing treatment of Morgan. We reverse. Section 916.107(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), provides in relevant part: (a) A forensic client shall be asked to give express and informed written consent for treatment....
..., 2011, and for ninety days thereafter. The petition in this case was filed on August 10, 2011, more than ninety days after the prior order was entered. Thus, this petition was not a petition for the continuation of the previous order as provided in section 916.107(3)(a)2....
...Co.,
945 So.2d 1216, 1235 (Fla.2006) (quoting Albrecht v. State,
444 So.2d 8, 12 (Fla.1984)). The petition to authorize treatment was for a different ninety-day period and is therefore not the same thing sued for previously. Therefore, it was necessary for the state to prove compliance with section
916.107(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2010)....
...Treasure Coast Forensic Treatment Center (“TCFTC”), the facility where Morgan was receiving care, petitioned the court for an order authorizing medical treatment including the administration of psychotropic medications because Morgan had refused to give express and informed consent to treatment in writing as required by section 916.107(3)(a)....
...The proposed treatment was not experimental and did not present a risk for irreversible side effects. Without treatment, Morgan’s prognosis was poor. At the close of the hearing, the trial court granted the petition finding that there was clear and convincing evidence of each of the factors in section 916.107(3)(a)3....
...eam. “On appellate review of an order requiring a forensic patient to accept involuntary psychotropic treatment, ‘the record must contain competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s findings and to substantiate compliance with section 916.107.’ ” Louisma v....
...The record must contain evidence “that the treatment is deemed necessary by the patient’s multidisciplinary team, that the patient has refused to give express and informed consent as defined in the statute, and that the trial court has considered at least the four factors speci- *680 fled in clauses a-d of section
916.107(3)(a)3.” Dinardo,
742 So.2d at 289 ....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 13989, 2003 WL 22136052
...The issue in this case is whether a sheriff is entitled to bring a writ of mandamus to recover expenses from the Department of Children and Families (the Department) when that agency fails to place or take custody of an incarcerated, incompetent criminal defendant after the fifteen-day period described in section 916.107(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2001)....
...On March 19, 2001, the five defendants separately filed emergency petitions for writs of habeas corpus seeking release from the Palm Beach County Jail on the ground that each was being illegally detained, because the Department had failed to take custody of them within fifteen days of commitment as mandated by section 916.107(l)(a)....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 16139, 2009 WL 3491035
PER CURIAM. Appellant, a committed defendant, requests this court review the trial court’s denial of her Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed pursuant to section 916.107(9)(b), Florida Statutes (2008)....
...Based on this assumption, the trial court determined it lacked authority to grant appellant’s requested relief. This would appear to be a ruling of law that no relief was available to a petitioner who alleges that her rights guaranteed pursuant to section 916.107(9), Florida Statutes, have been violated....
...a particular facility or receive a specialized treatment.”); see also Dep’t of Children & Families v. M.H.,
830 So.2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). However, these cases do not address the specific right of habeas corpus afforded appellant through section
916.107(9)(b), which provides in pertinent part: (9) Habeas corpus.— (b) A client or his or her legal guardian or representatives or attorney may file a petition in the circuit court in the county where the client is committed alleging that...
...hat a procedure authorized herein is being abused. Upon the filing of such a petition, the circuit court shall have the authority to conduct a judicial inquiry and to issue any appropriate order to correct an abuse of this chapter. (Emphasis added). Section
916.107(9)(b) is the enforcement mechanism for section
916.107, which acts as a committed defendant’s bill of rights. State, Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Stoutamire,
602 So.2d 564, 567 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In Stoutamire , the Second District intervened in the placement of a committed defendant based in part on the application of section
916.107(9)(b), stating: Chapter 916, Florida Statutes, is entitled the “Forensic Client Services Act.” §
916.105, Fla. Stat. (1991). Portions of this chapter might just as easily be dubbed a “mentally ill defendants’ bill of rights.” See particularly §
916.107, Fla....
...Stat. (1991). This chapter, whose last substantial revision occurred in 1985, applies both to patients committed as incompetent to stand trial, and those acquitted of criminal charges by reason of insanity. §
916.106(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (1991). In subsection
916.107(4), the legislature has specifically dictated that “each patient committed pursuant to this chapter shall receive treatment suited to his needs,” including “such medical, vocational, social, educational, and rehabilitative services as his condition requires to bring about an early return to his community.” The legislature has ... specified ... [a method] for judicial implementation of these goals.... [Section
916.107(9) confers the right of a patient (extending to a guardian, representative, friend, and parties similarly situated) to petition for habeas corpus. Here, appellant expressly raised her action under the authority of section
916.107(9)(b)....
...may not dictate specific treatment for an individual. While the trial court is correct that no prior Florida case has clearly established a trial court’s authority to intervene where a committed defendant files a writ of ha-beas corpus pursuant to section
916.107(9)(b), the strict application of the statute’s wording allows intervention if there is a determination that a defendant’s rights or privileges afforded in the committed defendant’s bill of rights have been denied. Namely, section
916.107(9)(b) grants a trial court the “authority to conduct a judicial inquiry and to issue an appropriate order to correct an abuse of this chapter” if appellant is being “unjustly denied a right or privilege granted herein.” §
916.107(9)(b), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added); see also Stoutamire,
602 So.2d at 567 . In her petition, appellant alleges the Department of Children and Families’ actions denied her several of the “rights and privileges” afforded in section
916.107, including the following subsections: *124 (2)(c) Every forensic client shall be afforded the opportunity to participate in activities designed to enhance self-image and the beneficial effects of other treatments or training, as determined by the facility....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...2
trial court's jurisdiction. Id. We concluded that the trial court erred in
striking her petition. Id. at 1105-06. Pertinent to this appeal, we held
that the trial court should have addressed the merits of Ms. Wood's
petition under section 916.107(9)(a), Florida Statutes (2022)....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2014 WL 2197622, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8085
PER CURIAM. The patient appeals from the trial court’s order granting the treatment center’s petition to impose involuntary psychotropic treatment upon the patient pursuant to section 916.107(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2013). The patient asserts the trial court erred in entering the order without competent, substantial evidence showing that he received, in writing, an individualized treatment plan which he had an opportunity to assist in preparing as required by section 916.107(2)(d), Florida *945 Statutes (2013)....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2014 WL 2100927, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 7635
...“On appellate review of an order requiring a forensic patient to accept involuntary psychotropic treatment, ‘the record must contain competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s findings and to substantiate compliance with sec *1162 tion
916.107, [Florida Statutes].’ ” Louisma v. State,
78 So.3d 50, 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quoting Dinardo v. State,
742 So.2d 287, 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)). With regards to the patient’s first argument, section
916.107(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2013), provides, in pertinent part: A forensic client shall be asked to give express and informed written consent for treatment. If a client refuses such treatment as is deemed necessary and essential by the client’s multidisciplinary treatment team for the appropriate care of the client, such treatment may be provided .... §
916.107(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013) (emphasis added). Although testimony from all treatment plan members is not required, in order to establish compliance with section
916.107(3)(a), “there must be ‘at least some evidence that the multidisciplinary team has discussed and approved the necessity of treatment.’ ” Smith v....
...See also Chapman v. State,
133 So.3d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (“[T]he physician did not testify that the treatment team approved the treatment plan or deemed it necessary and essential. Thus, no competent, substantial evidence exists to show compliance with section
916.107(3)(a).”); Smith,
117 So.3d at 859 (explaining that because the psychiatrist never testified that the other members of the team approved of the necessity of the treatment plan, there was insufficient evidence as to compliance with th...
...le to acknowledge the charges against him. Based on the foregoing, we reverse the circuit court’s order and remand with instructions for a future hearing at which time the treatment center may present *1163 evidence of its compliance with sections 916.107(B)(a)....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 199, 2013 WL 1234993, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 543
...al-swho have received-services from substance — abuse—sendee—providers. §
397.501(7), Fla. Stat. (x) Identifying-information-in eClinical records of detained criminal defendants found incompetent to proceed or acquitted by reason of insanity. §
916.107(8), Fla....
...ndividuals who have received services feom-substonce abuse-service providers. §
397.501(7), Ha: Stat. ;-Identifying information-in'clinical records of detained- eriminal-defendants found inoompetent to proceed-or acquitted by-reason of insanityr-§-
916.107(8)....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2017 WL 2491605, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8532
...continued detention in the Brevard County Jail. The trial court denied relief.
A defendant "who has been adjudicated incompetent to proceed or not guilty by
reason of insanity" may be held in a jail "as an emergency facility for up to 15 days." §
916.107, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...State,
729 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), in which this Court
reversed an order authorizing medical treatment, finding that
the state presented “absolutely no evidence that the
multidisciplinary team deemed the treatment to be necessary, as
required by section
916.107(3)(a), Florida Statutes.” Id....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2017 WL 2704497
PER CURIAM. The order authorizing involuntary medical treatment is affirmed as the requirements of section 916.107(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2016), were proved by competent, substantial evidence....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11403, 2015 WL 4549631
...rder granting the petition,
which found: “Based upon the clear and convincing evidence during this
hearing, including the testimony of [the psychiatrist], the Forensic Client
is in immediate need of psychiatric medication and treatment pursuant to
Section 916.107(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2013).” The form order noted the
magistrate had “considered the following factors in making its
determination: a....
...are involuntarily committed
to the department or agency, and who are still under the
jurisdiction of the committing court, be provided in a manner
. . . which ensures the rights of the defendants as provided in
this chapter.
Section 916.107(3), Florida Statutes (2014), allows a facility to
involuntarily treat a patient if the facility meets certain requirements and
obtains a court order:
(3) Right to express and informed consent.--
(a) A forensic client shall be asked to give express and
informed written consent for treatment....
...evidence ‘that the treatment is deemed necessary by the patient’s
multidisciplinary team, that the patient has refused to give express and
informed consent as defined in the statute, and that the trial court has
considered at least the four factors specified in clauses a-d of section
916.107(3)(a) 3.’” Louisma v....
...4th DCA 2012)
(quoting Dinardo v. State,
742 So. 2d 287, 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)). “On
appellate review of an order authorizing involuntary psychotropic
treatment, the record must contain competent substantial evidence to
substantiate compliance with section
916.107, Florida Statutes.” Smith v.
State, 145 So....
...State,
138 So. 3d 1160, 1161-62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
4
Appellant argues that the state established his need for only Lithium,
not the remaining drugs listed in the petition. He also contends that,
contrary to section
916.107(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2014), and section
916.106(8), Florida Statutes (2014), the facility did not give him “the
opportunity to prove express and informed consent to any medication
other than Lithium or Saphris.”
While app...
...On this record, there was simply no evidence as to the medical
necessity of the drugs other than Lithium and Saphris, and the court did
not have any evidence to support findings on the statutory factors which
the court must consider to authorize involuntary treatment.
Section 916.107(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2014), requires the forensic
client to “be asked to give express and informed written consent for
treatment.” Only when a client refuses treatment does the facility petition
for a court order under section 916.107(3)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2014).
See Louisma, 78 So....
...5
If within the ninety day period “there is immediate danger to the safety
of the client or others,” the statute provides for emergency treatment for
48 hours on the authorization of a physician, even without client approval.
§ 916.107(3)(a)1., Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...equally restrict a defendant’s liberty as he or she is not free to leave the facility and that,
as a practical matter, the conditions of commitment may be just as unpleasant as a jail.
Defendants committed for restoration of competency, however, have statutory rights.
§ 916.107, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 3448504, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 10950
...We reverse because competent, substantial evidence was not presented that the patient’s multidisciplinary team had discussed and approved the necessity of the recommended treatment plan. To sustain on appellate review an order requiring a forensic patient to accept *859 involuntary psychotropic treatment under section 916.107(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2012), there must be “at least some evidence that the multidisciplinary team has discussed and approved the necessity of treatment.” Troutman v....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2014 WL 51656, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 150
...State,
94 So.3d 677, 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“[O]n appellate review of an order requiring a forensic patient to accept involuntary psychotropic treatment, the record must contain competent, substantial evidence ... to substantiate compliance with section
916.107, [Florida Statutes].”) (citation and quotations omitted). We agree with the patient’s arguments and reverse. On the first argument, section
916.107(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2013), provides, in pertinent part: A forensic client shall be asked to give express and informed written consent for treatment. If a client refuses such treatment as is deemed necessary and essential by the client’s multidisciplinary treatment team for the appropriate care of the client, such treatment may be provided .... §
916.107(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013) (emphasis added). To establish compliance with section
916.107(3), “testimony from all treatment team members is not necessary.” Dinardo v....
...his initial ... treatment stabilization plan.” However, the physician did not testify that the treatment team approved the treatment plan or deemed it necessary and essential. Thus, no competent, substantial evidence exists to show compliance with section 916.107(3)(a)....
...disciplinary treatment team.”); Morgan,
94 So.3d at 680 (“The record on appeal does not contain any evidence that [the patient’s] *1077 multidisciplinary team discussed or approved the necessity for this treatment.”). On the second argument, section
916.107(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2013), provides: Not more than 30 days after admission, each client shall have and receive, in writing, an individualized treatment or training plan which the client has had an opportunity to assist in preparing. §
916.107(2)(d), Fla....
...Moreover, although the treatment team physician testified that the treatment team met with the patient to discuss the treatment plan, the physician admitted that she did not fully discuss medications with him, as the discussion appeared to agitate him. Thus, no competent, substantial evidence exists to show compliance with section 916.107(2)(d). Based on the foregoing, we reverse the circuit court’s order and remand with instructions to hold a hearing for the treatment center to present evidence of the treatment team’s compliance with sections 916.107(3)(a) and 916.107(2)(d)....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 32540
...Simpson was committed to Florida State Hospital pursuant to chapter 916, Florida Statutes, after being found incompetent to proceed to trial. The only treatment which may be judicially imposed after commitment, pursuant to chapter 916 is that authorized under section 916.107(3), and after such treatment is deemed necessary by the "treatment team." See Meeker v....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 40 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 29, 43 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1199, 2015 Fla. LEXIS 113, 2015 WL 263902
...which pertain to the identity, diagnosis, and prognosis of and service provision to
individuals. §
397.501(7), Fla. Stat.
(x) Clinical records of criminal defendants found
incompetent to proceed or acquitted by reason of insanity. §
916.107(8), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 178, 2012 WL 75238
...epartment of Children and Families. He claims that no competent substantial evidence supports the finding that the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication was deemed necessary and essential by his multidisciplinary team, as required by section 916.107, Florida Statutes....
...the treatment was necessary for the appellant’s mental illness and did not present any unreasonable risk of harm and that based upon Dr. LoPic-colo’s testimony, appellant was in immediate need of psychiatric medication and treatment pursuant to section 916.107(8)(a), Florida Statutes (2010). The circuit court adopted the magistrate’s report and recommended order authorizing treatment. This appeal follows. Section 916.107(3)(a), provides that “[a] forensic client shall be asked to give express and informed written consent for treatment.” However, “[i]f a client refuses such treatment as is deemed necessary and essential by the client’s multidisciplinary treatment team for the appropriate care of the client,” such treatment may be provided under certain statutorily enumerated circumstances. § 916.107(3)(a), Fla....
...ion, or autism, that the treatment not consented to is essential to the care of the client, and that the treatment not consented to is not experimental and does not present an unreasonable risk of serious, hazardous, or irreversible side effects.” § 916.107(3)(a)3., Fla....
...(2010). On appellate review of an order requiring a forensic patient to accept involuntary psychotropic treatment, “the record must contain competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s findings and to substantiate compliance with section 916.107.” Dinardo v....
...This requires the record to contain evidence “that the treatment is deemed necessary by the patient’s multidisciplinary team, that the patient has refused to give express and informed consent as defined in the statute, and that the trial court has considered at least the four factors specified in clauses ad of section 916.107(3)(a)3.” Id....
...hospital, finding that the record did not show that the specific drug treatment ordered by the ti'ial court was “treatment ... deemed necessary by the patient’s multidisciplinary treatment team at the forensic facility” *53 within the terms of section 916.107(3)(a)....
...1st DCA 1998) (holding that treatment order’s conclusory findings failed to comport with the requirements delineated in Meeker where the lower court made no reference to the multidisciplinary treatment team in the order or whether the team had deemed the treatment to be necessary as required by section 916.107, and such a finding could not be substantiated based upon record evidence); Hills v....
...1st DCA 1998), the First District reversed an order authorizing medical treatment without the patient’s consent, holding that the State “presented absolutely no evidence that the multidisciplinary team deemed the treatment to be necessary, as required by section 916.107(3)(a), Florida Statutes.” Id....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1504, 1998 WL 65406
...or bipolar *104 disorder, but after treatment began, became violent and refused medication. Hills’ psychiatrist petitioned for, and the trial judge ordered, in a February 20,1997 order, emergency treatment for ninety days. The order is premised on section 916.107, Florida Statutes (1995). Section 916.107 provides in relevant part: Rights of forensic clients.— [[Image here]] (3) RIGHT TO EXPRESS AND INFORMED CONSENT.— (a) A person committed to the department pursuant to this act shall be asked to give express and informed written consent for treatment....
...facility for the appropriate care of the patient and the safety of the patient or others, such treatment may be provided under the following circumstances.... (Emphasis added.) We held, in Meeker v. State,
584 So.2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), applying section
916.107, 1 that the evidence was not sufficient to show that a patient’s “treatment team” had deemed necessary the administration of the psychotropic drug mandated by the trial court’s order....
...e physician the treatment decision mandated in the order under review. We therefore reverse and remand for consistent proceedings. KAHN and MICKLE, JJ., concur. . The language of subsection (3) remains the same as that interpreted in Meeker. Compare § 916.107, Fla. Stat. (1991) with § 916.107, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1312, 1998 WL 60422
...Willie Moreland appeals an order that authorized medical treatment without his consent for a period of time while he was confined in the Florida State Hospital by commitment pursuant to chapter 916, Florida Statutes. Although the order purports to authorize treatment in accordance with section 916.107(3)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), we conclude that the order is inadequate for failure to satisfy the minimum statutory requirements delineated in Meeker v....
...to a lien on a client’s property for unpaid fees or for services provided by the Department). Under the circumstances presented below, the only treatment that could be judicially imposed after commitment, pursuant to chapter 916, was that which was authorized under section 916.107(3)(a)2, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), after such treatment was deemed necessary by the patient’s “multidisciplinary treatment team at the forensic facility.” See Vaughn, supra; Simpson v....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 3326435, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13554
...LoPiccolo testified that the defendant suffered from psycho-effective disorder, bipolar type. The presiding magistrate found that forcible treatment was necessary, and his recommendation was adopted by the circuit court. We reversed the order authorizing forcible treatment. Id. at 53-54 . Under section 916.107(3)(a), a patient cannot be forcibly treated unless the treatment is “deemed necessary and essential by the client’s multidisciplinary treatment team for the appropriate care of the client.” Id. at 52 (quoting § 916.107(3)(a), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2014 WL 3928419, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12429
...nary treatment team deemed his
treatment necessary and essential, we reverse.
On appellate review of an order authorizing involuntary psychotropic
treatment, the record must contain competent substantial evidence to
substantiate compliance with section
916.107, Florida Statutes. Morgan
v. State,
94 So. 3d 677, 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
Section
916.107(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2013), states that “[a] forensic
client shall be asked to give express and informed written consent for
treatment.” The statute further states that “[i]f a client refuses such
treatment as is deemed necessary and essential by the client’s
multidisciplinary treatment team for the appropriate care of the client,”
such treatment may be provided under certain enumerated
circumstances. §
916.107(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013) (emphasis added).
To establish compliance with section
916.107(3)(a), the petitioner must
present evidence that the patient’s multidisciplinary team has deemed the
recommended treatment to be necessary and essential. See, e.g.,
Chapman v. State,
133 So. 3d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (no
competent substantial evidence existed to show compliance with section
916.107 where “the physician did not testify that the treatment team
approved the treatment plan or deemed it necessary and essential”);
Troutman v....
...treatment is deemed necessary by the patient’s multidisciplinary team,
that the patient has refused to give express and informed consent as
defined in the statute, and that the trial court has considered at least the
four factors specified in clauses a–d of section
916.107(3)(a)3.’ ” Morgan,
94 So. 3d at 679-80 (quoting Dinardo v. State,
742 So. 2d 287, 289 (Fla.
1st DCA 1998)) (formatting altered).
Here, the record does not contain competent, substantial evidence to
show compliance with section
916.107(3)(a)....
...elow
concerning the absence of evidence that the multi-disciplinary team
deemed the medications in appellant’s treatment plan to be necessary and
essential. Nonetheless, we conclude that the State’s failure to present
evidence of compliance with section 916.107(3)(a) is fundamental error
that may be raised on appeal even if the argument was not preserved
below.
2
“An error is fundamental when it goes to the foundation of the case or
the merits of the cause of action and is equivalent to a denial of due
process.” J.B....
...tal
trial-related interests.” Sell v. United States,
539 U.S. 166, 179 (2003).
We find that the State’s failure to establish that a defendant’s
multidisciplinary treatment team deemed the treatment necessary and
essential as required under section
916.107(3)(a) goes to the foundation of
the proceeding and is equivalent to the denial of due process. Thus, the
complete failure of the evidence to establish compliance with section
916.107(3)(a) is the type of error that rises to the level of fundamental
error, thereby excusing the preservation requirement.
Appellant also argues, for the first time on appeal, that the trial court
erred in entering the order without evidence showing that he received, in
writing, an individualized treatment plan which he had an opportunity to
assist in preparing as required by section
916.107(2)(d), Florida Statutes
(2013)....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...trial court also found that Ms.
Wood's commitment to the mental health treatment facility was
authorized by its March 16, 2023, order "and is therefore lawful."
Both of the trial court's reasons for striking Ms. Wood's petition are
incorrect.1 Section 916.107(9)(a) states, in pertinent part:
(9) HABEAS CORPUS.
(a) At any time, and without notice, a forensic client[2]
detained by a facility, or a relative, friend, guardian,
representative, or attorney on behalf of such client, may petition
for a writ of habeas corpus to question the cause and legality of
1 Under certain circumstances, the trial court's rationale would be
correct. However, the result in this case is dictated by section 916.107,
which gives specific rights to defendants who have been placed in a
forensic facility as a result of having been found incompetent to proceed.
2 " 'Forensic client' ....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 1748540, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6553
...treatment plan and an opportunity to assist in preparing that plan; or (2) that his multidisciplinary treatment team discussed and approved his recommended treatment. We affirm on the first ground without discussion. We reverse on the second ground. Section 916.107(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2012), provides, in pertinent part: A forensic client shall be asked to give express and informed written consent for treatment. If a client refuses such treatment as is deemed necessary and essential by the client’s multidisciplinary treatment team for the appropriate care of the client, such treatment may be provided under the following circumstances. ... § 916.107(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012) (emphasis added). Our case law interpreting section 916.107(3)(a) “ ‘requires that at least some evidence that the multidisciplinary team has discussed and approved the necessity of treatment be presented.’ ” Martin v....
...We also have held that “‘[o]n appellate review of an order requiring a forensic patient to accept involuntary psychotropic treatment, the record must contain competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s findings and to substantiate compliance with section 916.107.’ ” Morgan v....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5356, 2006 WL 931938
...See id. at 120 . However, because Everett concerned a statutorily-mandated evaluation under section
916.303(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2004), to determine whether Everett continued to meet the criteria for secure residential placement, we found that section
916.107(10), Florida Statutes (2004), governed the issue of who was responsible for providing transportation, namely the Sheriffs Office....
