HEALTH LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2023)
Sarah Edwards
In Matter of Sergio F., 529 P.3d 74 (Alaska 2023), the supreme court held that the State has the burden of proving that there are no less restrictive treatment options available when seeking involuntary commitment of an individual. (Id. at 80). Sergio F. was taken into emergency custody after his religious delusions caused him to walk naked alongside a public road in the winter. (Id. at 75). After evaluation at a treatment facility and a court hearing, he was involuntarily committed for 30 days of inpatient treatment. (Id. at 76). His doctor subsequently filed a petition to extend his commitment to 90 days, and after another hearing, the court extended his commitment. (Id. at 76–77). The State argued that because he was found to be “gravely disabled,” and because his proposed outpatient treatment plan seemed inadequate, it was implied that involuntary commitment was the least restrictive option. (Id. at 79). Sergio F. appealed and argued that the State failed to show that involuntary commitment was the least restrictive treatment option. (Id. at 78). The supreme court held that the State has the burden of proving that there are no less restrictive treatment options available, and it failed to meet this burden. (Id. at 80). The supreme court reasoned that the 90-day commitment order did not attempt to determine whether less restrictive options existed. (Id.). The supreme court vacated the commitment order, holding that the State did not meet its burden of showing that involuntary commitment was the least restrictive treatment option available for Sergio F. (Id. at 82). The supreme court held that the State has the burden of proving that there are no less restrictive treatment options available when seeking involuntary commitment of an individual. (Id. at 80).
