HEALTH LAW
Mike Keramidas
In Israel v. State, Department of Corrections, the supreme court held that a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia based on delusions was correct as a matter of law when the diagnosed party’s evidence was “too incredible to be believed” and therefore insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion. Psychiatrists from the Alaska Department of Corrections (DOC) diagnosed Israel with paranoid schizophrenia partially based on his belief that he had a genetic trait allowing him to see poltergeists. The DOC chief medical officer testified as an expert witness that two DOC psychiatrists diagnosed Israel with paranoid schizophrenia. Delusions are a key element of paranoid schizophrenia. Israel argued that he was misdiagnosed because he could not conduct an insects-in-jars demonstration to prove that he could actually see poltergeists. The superior court granted the DOC’s summary judgment motion when it found that the standard of care was not violated. On appeal, the supreme court affirmed. Israel had the burden of proving the relevant standard of care, that the psychiatrists failed to meet that standard, and that he was proximately harmed. The court held that Israel’s proposed insects-in-jars demonstration as an offer of proof for his belief, along with the belief itself, were “too incredible to be believed.” The court further held that, because Israel did not offer any psychiatric expert testimony, there was no genuine issue of material fact; therefore, granting summary judgment was proper. Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia based on delusions was correct as a matter of law when the diagnosed party’s evidence was “too incredible to be believed” and therefore insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.
