Y.T. VS. DIVISION OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION SERVICES (DIVISION OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION SERVICES) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2018 )

RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4947-16T4
Y.T.,
Appellant,
v.
DIVISION OF MENTAL HEALTH
AND ADDICTION SERVICES,
Respondent.
______________________________
Submitted October 9, 2018 – Decided October 17, 2018
Before Judges Haas and Sumners.
On appeal from the New Jersey Division of Mental
Health and Addiction Services, Department of Human
Services.
Y.T., appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Arundhati Mohankumar, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Y.T. appeals from Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital's (GPPH's) final
administrative decision to administer psychotropic medication to her without
her consent. We affirm.
On February 23, 2017, Y.T. was involuntarily committed to GPPH after
she had an altercation with a neighbor and cut the neighbor's face with glass,
causing the neighbor to sustain a wound that required thirty stitches. Y.T.'s
treating psychiatrist diagnosed her as suffering from Bipolar Disorder, and
prescribed a treatment regimen that included the administration of psychotropic
medications to address Y.T.'s assaultive behavior and anger issues.
However, Y.T. refused to take the medication voluntarily because she
asserted that she did not have a mental illness. In accordance with written
protocols developed by the State Department of Health, Division of Mental
Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS), Y.T.'s psychiatrist prepared an
Involuntary Medication Administration Report (IMAR), documenting Y.T.'s
condition and the medications involved in the treatment plan. GPPH's Medical
Director reviewed the IMAR, and scheduled a panel review hearing. The
hearing panel was composed of three non-treating clinicians. Y.T. received
notice of the hearing, and a Client Services Advocate was appointed to assist
her.
A-4947-16T4
2
At the hearing, Y.T.'s treating psychiatrist opined that involuntary
medication was needed because Y.T. (1) was "paranoid, agitated[,] and
delusional" when noncompliant with medication; (2) had "threatened her family
members"; and (3) had recently become agitated and "advanced towards a
nurse." Y.T. testified that she did not "have an anger issue or any reason to take
medication." She called two of her family members to testify on her behalf.
Both stated that Y.T. was unable to control herself, and became "angry and
easily upset" without medication.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the panel determined that Y.T. required
medication. After being provided with the required notice, Y.T. appealed the
determination. The GPPH Clinical Director conducted a review and upheld the
decision. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Y.T. asserts that GPPH erred by determining that she should
be medicated without her consent because her mental illness caused her to be
dangerous to others. We disagree.
Our scope of review of an administrative agency's final determination is
limited. In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 27 (2007). "[A] strong presumption of
reasonableness attaches" to the agency's decision. In re Carroll, 339 N.J. Super.
429, 437 (App. Div. 2001) (quoting In re Vey, 272 N.J. Super. 199, 205 (App.
A-4947-16T4
3
Div. 1993), aff'd, 135 N.J. 306 (1994)). The burden is upon the appellant to
demonstrate grounds for reversal. McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J.
Super. 544, 563 (App. Div. 2002). To that end, we will "not disturb an
administrative agency's determinations or findings unless there is a clear
showing that (1) the agency did not follow the law; (2) the decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; or (3) the decision was not supported by
substantial evidence." In re Virtua-West Jersey Hosp. Voorhees for a Certificate
of Need, 194 N.J. 413, 422 (2008).
Applying this standard, we conclude that GPPH's decision to involuntarily
medicate Y.T. was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. GPPH followed
the DMHAS involuntary medication policy and procedures. Its decision was
based on the judgment of independent clinicians following a hearing and after
an administrative appeal.
Affirmed.
A-4947-16T4
4