IN THE INTEREST OF P.T., APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the general master's report satisfied procedural rules for an involuntary commitment order, but the trial court erred in appointing a guardian advocate when the patient was found competent to consent to treatment.
P.T. appealed an order of involuntary commitment under the Baker Act, challenging both the commitment and the appointment of a guardian advocate. The …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse General Master'S Report cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
P.T., the respondent below, appeals from an order of involuntary commitment pursuant to the Baker Act. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
We affirm the order of involuntary commitment. The general master’s report, which provided a summary of the testimony and identified the witnesses who testified regarding P.T.’s transfer to a long-term care facility, satisfies the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.490(f). See De Clements v. De Clements, 662 So. 2d 1276, 1284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“The written record may consist of a narrative summary of the evidence either prepared by the Master or, as indicated above, by some other person acting in a manner consistent with the Rule.”).
However, we reverse the trial court’s appointment of a guardian advocate. The general master found that P.T. was competent to consent to treatment within the meaning of section 394.467(6)(d), Florida Statutes, and therefore determined that a guardian advocate should not be appointed. As the uncontradicted testimony of P.T.’s treating psychiatrist supports this finding, the trial court erred in rejecting the master’s recommendation. See De Clements, 662 So. 2d at 1282 (holding that “a Master’s findings of fact and conclusions of law come to the trial court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and the trial court may only reject these findings and conclusions if they are clearly erroneous or if the Master has misconceived the legal effect of the evidence presented.”) (citations omitted).
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Flavio Jose Gavino v. State, 844 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…PER CURIAM.' The appellant’s motion for post sentence relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 was correctly denied as improperly successive to at least two prior cases. See Gavino v. State, 827 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Gavino v. State, 693 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Francois v. State, 470 So. 2d 687 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1122, 102 S.Ct. 3511, 73 L.Ed.2d 1384 (1982); Carter v. State, 832 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).…
Authorities Cited
- de Clements v. de Clements, 662 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)