W.S. VS. NJ DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES (DIVISION OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION SERVICES) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5398-17T4
W.S.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARMENT
OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent-Respondent.
_____________________________
Submitted May 13, 2019 – Decided July 18, 2019
Before Judges Sumners and Mitterhoff.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Human
Services, Division of Mental Health and Addiction
Services.
W.S., appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Shereen Rizk Youssef, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
W.S. appeals from Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital's (GPPH) final
administrative decision to administer psychotropic medication to her without
her consent. We affirm.
On June 20, 2018, W.S. was involuntarily committed to GPPH after she
repeatedly reported to police that she planned to cut her wrists and bleed out in
the bathtub. Shortly after her admission, she kicked another patient due to
paranoia, hostility, irritability and agitation. W.S.'s psychiatrist prescribed a
treatment regimen that included the administration of psychotropic medications
to address her destructive behaviors.
However, W.S. refused to take the medication, denying mental illness and
her need for medication. In accordance with written protocols developed by the
State Department of Health, Division of Mental Health and Addiction Services
(DMHAS), W.S.'s psychiatrist prepared an Involuntary Medication
Administration Report (IMAR), documenting W.S.'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. W.S. received notice of the hearing,
and a Client Services Advocate was appointed to assist her.
A-5398-17T4
2
At the hearing, W.S.'s treating psychiatrist opined that involuntary
medication was needed because she suffered from schizoaffective disorder, bi-
polar type. He explained that without medication her "paranoia, hostility
irritability and agitation" would make her suicidal and cause her to be aggressive
and assaultive. W.S. tersely claimed, "I don't need medication. I need my
freedom." At the conclusion of the hearing, the panel determined that W.S.
required medication. After being provided with the required notice, she
appealed the determination. The GPPH Clinical Director conducted a review
and upheld the decision. This appeal followed.
On appeal, W.S. confusingly asserts, "I unduly know that I am well
because I am well in state of matters that appeal is from to me, that I know I will
not proceduraly [sic] know I am not." Simply put, W.S.'s brief is woefully non-
complaint with our court rules because it fails to make any coherent arguments
to establish that the final administrative decision to administer psychotropic
medication to her, without her consent, is not supported by the record and case
law. See R. 2:9-9. In addition, she fails to include a "table of citation of cases,
alphabetically arranged, of statutes and rules and of other authorities." R. 2:6-
1(a)(3). Nevertheless, we address the merits of the appeal and affirm.
A-5398-17T4
3
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.
Div. 1993)). 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 W.S. 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-5398-17T4
4