Ungerbuehler v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ungerbuehler v. State

729 So. 2d 954, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14403, 1998 WL 821853

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 12, 1998

DocketNo. 98-959

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 729 So. 2d 954 (Ungerbuehler v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ungerbuehler v. State, 729 So. 2d 954, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14403, 1998 WL 821853 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

WOLF, J.

The appellant challenges an order authorizing medical treatment without his consent for a period of time while he was confined in Florida State Hospital. We reverse.

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. The psychiatrist, the only person who testified in [955]*955the instant case, did not indicate that she spoke on behalf of the multidisciplinary team, nor was there testimony that the psychiatrist had discussed the necessity of medication with the treatment team. Cf. Dinardo v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1343, — So.2d -, 1998 WL 282795 (Fla. 1st DCA June 3, 1998) (affirming where psychiatrist specifically testified that medication had been discussed with and found necessary by treatment team). We therefore reverse. See Vaughn v. State, 705 So.2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

BARFIELD, C.J., and DAVIS, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WOLF, J.

The appellant challenges an order authorizing medical treatment without his consent for a period of time while he was confined in Florida State Hospital. We reverse.

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. The psychiatrist, the only person who testified in [955]*955the instant case, did not indicate that she spoke on behalf of the multidisciplinary team, nor was there testimony that the psychiatrist had discussed the necessity of medication with the treatment team. Cf. Dinardo v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1343, — So.2d -, 1998 WL 282795 (Fla. 1st DCA June 3, 1998) (affirming where psychiatrist specifically testified that medication had been discussed with and found necessary by treatment team). We therefore reverse. See Vaughn v. State, 705 So.2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

BARFIELD, C.J., and DAVIS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

729 So. 2d 954, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14403, 1998 WL 821853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ungerbuehler-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack