Health Law

  • Israel v. State, Department of Corrections
    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 ...
  • Matter of Arthur A.
    HEALTH LAW Macklin Willigan In Matter of Arthur A., the supreme court held that an individual subject to involuntary commitment proceedings has an implied statutory right to self-representation, and if the individual clearly and unequivocally invokes this right—though not absolute—the superior court must hold a preliminary hearing and consider the factors outlined in McCracken v. State to ...
  • In re Necessity for the Hospitalization of Rabi R.
    HEALTH Savannah Artusi   In re Necessity for the Hospitalization of Rabi R. In In re Necessity for the Hospitalization of Rabi R., 468 P.3d 721 (Alaska 2020), the supreme court held that the lower court’s failure to order a screening investigation upon receipt of a petition for involuntary detention for psychiatric evaluation was harmless error because the later ...
  • In re Hospitalization of Danielle B.
    In In re Hospitalization of Danielle B., the supreme court found, upon review of an involuntary commitment petition, that sufficient evidence supported a finding that involuntary hospitalization was the least restrictive treatment option. When Danielle was evicted from a motel, she assaulted a police officer at the scene and then threatened to assault staff when ...
  • In re Hospitalization of Luciano G.
    In In re Hospitalization of Luciano G., the supreme court held the evidence in an involuntary commitment order sufficiently supported a finding that the detainee was likely to cause harm to himself or others. After becoming belligerent with an airport ticketing agent, Luciano G. balled his fists and refused to cooperate with an airport security ...
  • In re Naomi B.
    In In re Naomi B., the supreme court held that all appeals of involuntary admission and compulsory taking of medication fall under the public interest exception to mootness. The two consolidated cases before the supreme court concerned the Alaska Adult Protective Services (APS) petitions for an ex parte order that would commit Naomi B. to ...
  • In re Necessity for the Hospitalization of G.L.
    In In re Necessity for the Hospitalization of G.L., the supreme court held that in involuntary commitment hearings the superior court must consider the condition of the patient at the time of the hearing for commitment, which can include evidence of past behavior or conditions likely to impact the patient’s mental or health or likelihood ...
  • Matter of Lucy G.
    In Matter of Lucy G., the supreme court held that there was clear and convincing evidence that involuntary electroconvulsive therapy (“ECT”) was in catatonic patient’s best interest and that ECT was least intrusive available treatment. Lucy G., a patient diagnosed with schizophrenia, was hospitalized due to her catatonic behavior and her psychiatrist petitioned the superior ...

Health Law

  • Israel v. State, Department of Corrections
    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 ...
  • Matter of Arthur A.
    HEALTH LAW Macklin Willigan In Matter of Arthur A., the supreme court held that an individual subject to involuntary commitment proceedings has an implied statutory right to self-representation, and if the individual clearly and unequivocally invokes this right—though not absolute—the superior court must hold a preliminary hearing and consider the factors outlined in McCracken v. State to ...
  • In re Necessity for the Hospitalization of Rabi R.
    HEALTH Savannah Artusi   In re Necessity for the Hospitalization of Rabi R. In In re Necessity for the Hospitalization of Rabi R., 468 P.3d 721 (Alaska 2020), the supreme court held that the lower court’s failure to order a screening investigation upon receipt of a petition for involuntary detention for psychiatric evaluation was harmless error because the later ...
  • In re Hospitalization of Danielle B.
    In In re Hospitalization of Danielle B., the supreme court found, upon review of an involuntary commitment petition, that sufficient evidence supported a finding that involuntary hospitalization was the least restrictive treatment option. When Danielle was evicted from a motel, she assaulted a police officer at the scene and then threatened to assault staff when ...
  • In re Hospitalization of Luciano G.
    In In re Hospitalization of Luciano G., the supreme court held the evidence in an involuntary commitment order sufficiently supported a finding that the detainee was likely to cause harm to himself or others. After becoming belligerent with an airport ticketing agent, Luciano G. balled his fists and refused to cooperate with an airport security ...
  • In re Naomi B.
    In In re Naomi B., the supreme court held that all appeals of involuntary admission and compulsory taking of medication fall under the public interest exception to mootness. The two consolidated cases before the supreme court concerned the Alaska Adult Protective Services (APS) petitions for an ex parte order that would commit Naomi B. to ...
  • In re Necessity for the Hospitalization of G.L.
    In In re Necessity for the Hospitalization of G.L., the supreme court held that in involuntary commitment hearings the superior court must consider the condition of the patient at the time of the hearing for commitment, which can include evidence of past behavior or conditions likely to impact the patient’s mental or health or likelihood ...
  • Matter of Lucy G.
    In Matter of Lucy G., the supreme court held that there was clear and convincing evidence that involuntary electroconvulsive therapy (“ECT”) was in catatonic patient’s best interest and that ECT was least intrusive available treatment. Lucy G., a patient diagnosed with schizophrenia, was hospitalized due to her catatonic behavior and her psychiatrist petitioned the superior ...