San Diego County Department of Public Welfare v. Wilson

California Court of Appeal Oct 29, 1982 No. Civ. 24895Published

Before: Brown (Gerald)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court erred by instructing the jury that a person is 'gravely disabled' if they cannot provide for their basic needs unassisted, as the jury must consider whether the individual can provide for those needs with the help of others.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in its jury instruction defining 'gravely disabled' by excluding the possibility of assistance from others.
Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence regarding the appellant's ability to utilize family assistance to meet her basic needs.
Whether the issue of grave disability is moot due to the expiration of the one-year conservatorship period.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In giving the County’s proposed instruction, the court too narrowly construed the definition of gravely disabled.”

“The trial court should have allowed the jury to consider Lori’s ability to provide for her personal needs with any available help or encouragement.”

“The trial court should have instructed the jury in the language of the statute.”

[134]

Opinion

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

Lori Wilson appeals a judgment and order for conservatorship after a jury found her gravely disabled (Welf & Inst. Code § 5350).

Lori was 23 years old at the time of trial. She had a six-year history of psychiatric problems, and had been hospitalized several times for treatment of her mental illness. Lori’s symptoms include sleepless nights, high energy levels, restless wandering, auditory hallucinations, erratic driving, difficulty in communicating, agitation and excitement, and poor judgment.

Beginning in 1975, Lori tried to live independently, although she returned home to live with her father on several occasions. Lori worked as a nurse’s aide, a waitress and a bank teller, but only for short periods of time. She also attended college and participated in track and cross-country running. Although prescribed medications control Lori’s symptoms, she stopped taking them to begin a program of running and vitamin therapy. However, this therapy was ineffective in preventing the recurrence of Lori’s symptoms.

On February 13,1981, San Diego County Department of Public Welfare (the County) petitioned the superior court to appoint a conservator for Lori. The County alleged Lori needed a conservator because she was gravely disabled by reason of a mental disorder as provided by the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.). Following a hearing, the court found Lori was gravely disabled, and granted the County’s petition for conservator-ship.

Lori demanded a jury trial under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5350 subdivision (d) on the issue of her grave disability. A unanimous jury found Lori was gravely disabled. The court appointed a conservator, imposed specific disabilities, and ordered Lori placed in a skilled nursing long-term mental facility.

Lori contends the trial court erred in giving the County’s proposed jury instruction on grave disability: “The term ‘gravely disabled’ means a condition in which a person, as a result of a mental disorder, is unable, unassisted, to provide on a consistent basis for his or her basic personal needs for food, clothing or shelter. [¶]“In other words, if, as a result of a mental disorder, a person is unable, without the help or assistance of others, to provide for the specific basic personal needs, that person would be gravely disabled within the meaning of the statute.” Lori asserts the County’s instruction requires the jury to find her gravely disabled unless she is totally self-sufficient. She says the instruction, as

San Diego County Department of Public Welfare v. Wilson

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief