Diversity Leadership Council Newsletter
The newsletter of the ISBA’s Diversity Leadership Council

June 2008, vol. 2, no. 1

Now every article is the start of a discussion. If you're a member of the Illinois State Bar Association, you can comment on either of the articles that appear below.

In This Issue…

Related Court Cases

Mental Health Code
In re Beverly B.

Court erred in granting State's petition for involuntary administration of psychotropic medication. The general information that Respondent received about the types of treatments and activities available at Elgin Mental Health Center was insufficient to satisfy the mandate of Section 2-102(a-5) of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code. Court erred in ruling that Respondent was exhibiting deterioration of her ability to function or suffering. (ZENOFF and BIRKETT, concurring.)

Human Rights Act
People ex rel. Madigan v. Wildermuth

State may claim a violation under Illinois Human Rights Act pursuant to a reverse redlining theory where it did not allege that the defendant acted as a mortgage lender. Court erred in dismissing complaint with prejudice; dismissal should have been without prejudice, as grounds relied upon as to "other financial assistance" were lacking. Defendant's conduct, in filling out paperwork for loan modification process and recommending short sales did not amount to "financial assistance". Defendants were not a necessary and direct channel through which funds flow. (KARMEIER, FREEMAN, KILBRIDE, GARMAN, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

Involuntary Admission
In re Linda B.

Hospital's mental health facility director filed petition for involuntary admission of Respondent. Psychiatrist testified at hearing that Respondent's hospitalization began when she was admitted to a medical floor, where she was also "treated psychiatrically". A facility, or section thereof, capable of providing mental health services, that does provide the individual mental health services, is a mental health facility. Respondent has not shown that her physical entry into the facility, and her initial treatment there, were involuntary. Thus, she did not show that error occurred, that petition for involuntary commitment was not timely filed. (FREEMAN, THOMAS, KILBRIDE, GARMAN, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

Involuntary Administration of Medication
In re Carol B.

Respondent was involuntarily admitted to mental health facility. Upon her admission, psychiatrist determined Respondent lacked the capacity to consent to treatment and lacked a guardian or power of attorney to make a decision on her behalf. Under Section 2-107(a) of Mental Health Code, Respondent had the right to refuse administration of medication. State violated Section 2-107(a), when psychiatrist  prematurely administrated psychotropic medication,because Respondent lacked capacity to consent to treatment and her condition did not require administration of medication to prevent her from causing serious and imminent physical harm to herself or others. State's delay in filing amended petition left Respondent involuntarily admitted for more than a month before she received a hearing date, which denied her liberty interests. (HARRIS and APPLETON, concurring.)

Mandamus
Fillmore v. Taylor

Plaintiff, a DOC inmate, sued 3 DOC officers for failing to follow mandatory legal procedures before imposing discipline upon him for violating prison rules. "Prison regulations" of the type within inmate orientation manual confer no rights on inmates. In mandamus action, legal duty of public official must be clear and nondiscretionary, and Plaintiff must have a strong equitable case.  Petitioner for writ of certiorari must show that he or she has suffered a substantial injury or injustice. Count for declaratory judgment is legally insufficient in its entirety; mandamus and writ of certiorari counts are legally sufficient in their entirety. (POPE and KNECHT, concurring.)

Disclaimer: This newsletter is for subscribers’ personal use only; redistribution is prohibited. Copyright Illinois State Bar Association. Statements or expressions of opinion appearing herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Association or Editors, and likewise the publication of any advertisement is not to be construed as an endorsement of the product or service offered unless it is specifically stated in the ad that there is such approval or endorsement.