T.M.
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
T.M. appeals an order for involuntary outpatient treatment under Florida law. The court reversed the trial court's order, finding insufficient competent, substantial evidence that T.M. had been involuntarily admitted to treatment twice within the preceding 36 months as required by statute.
The trial court erred in granting the petition because the State failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that T.M. had twice been involuntarily admitted to a treatment facility within the preceding 36 months. The physician's testimony alone, without proper foundation through personal knowledge, admitted medical records via a records custodian, or a business records affidavit, was insufficient.
[1] A person may be ordered to involuntary outpatient services only upon a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person has been involuntarily admitted to a tre…
[2] Testimony from a treating physician regarding a patient's prior treatment history, without personal knowledge or proper admission of medical records, is insufficient to e…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A person may be ordered to involuntary outpatient services upon a finding of the court, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person meets all of the following criteria: . . . (e) The person has: 1. At least twice within the immediately preceding 36 months been involuntarily admitted to a receiving or treatment facility . . . .”
States the statutory requirement that T.M. must have been involuntarily admitted twice within 36 months to qualify for involuntary outpatient treatment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceT.M. was subject to a petition for involuntary outpatient treatment under section 394.4655, Florida Statutes. The State presented testimony from a tre…
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 Foundation For Business Records cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed October 2, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-148 Lower Tribunal No. M22-15662
________________
T.M., Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Javier Enriquez, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and John Eddy Morrison, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Jacqueline I. Kurland, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee. Before LOGUE, C.J., and MILLER and LOBREE, JJ. LOBREE, J.
T.M. appeals an order granting a petition for involuntary outpatient treatment pursuant to section 394.4655, Florida Statutes (2022).1 Upon review of the record, we find the trial court erred in granting the State’s petition as there was no competent, substantial evidence to support that T.M. had twice been involuntarily admitted to a treatment facility within the preceding thirty-six months, as required for a person to be ordered to involuntary outpatient services. See § 394.4655(2)(e)1., Fla. Stat. (2022) (“A person may be ordered to involuntary outpatient services upon a finding of the court, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person meets all of the following criteria: . . . (e) The person has: 1. At least twice within the immediately preceding 36 months been involuntarily admitted to a receiving or treatment facility . . . .”).
The evidence the State relied upon was testimony from the treating physician that she had reviewed T.M.’s medical records during his examination, T.M. had been recommended to participate in treatment within the past thirty-six months, and T.M. admitted that he previously failed to comply with treatment. However, that testimony alone was insufficient to meet the State’s burden regarding the timing and frequency of T.M.’s prior treatment over the defense hearsay objection. “Florida courts have routinely
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1992)
- Linn v. Basil D. Fossum, M.D., 946 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2006)
- Lowe's OF Tallahassee & Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v. Giaimo, 552 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Affiliated Healthcare Ctrs., Inc., 43 So. 3d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)