-Caveat Lector- Bruce Quarry, a senior psychiatric social worker and a member of appellant's treatment team, testified that appellant [*2] is diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. His statements indicate delusions of persecution and grandiosity, which intertwine in a "fixed and crystallized delusion" that there are microchips in his body.
~~~~~~ In the Matter of: Robert D. Caufman, Jr. CX-92-920 COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA 1992 Minn. App. LEXIS 948 August 31, 1992, Decided September 8, 1992, Filed NOTICE: [*1] THIS OPINION WILL BE UNPUBLISHED AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY MINN. STAT. � 480A.08, SUBD. 3 AS AMENDED. PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from District Court. Hennepin County. Hon. Kevin S. Burke, Judge. DISPOSITION: Affirmed. COUNSEL: Michael Saeger, 435 Hamm Building, 408 St. Peter Street, St. Paul, MN 55102, (For Appellant Caufman) Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, John R. Owen, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 JUDGES: Considered and decided by Huspeni, Presiding Judge, Norton, Judge, and Foley, Judge. OPINIONBY: DANIEL F. FOLEY OPINION: UNPUBLISHED OPINION FOLEY, Judge Appellant was committed as mentally ill to the Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center. He appeals and we affirm. FACTS Appellant had delusional beliefs that various microchips were implanted in his body, and he sought hospitalization so that surgeons could remove them. He was transferred to the psychiatric unit at the Hennepin County Medical Center. When confronted with the reality that he had a diagnosis of a substantial psychiatric disorder, he became very angry and irritable. Bruce Quarry, a senior psychiatric social worker and a member of appellant's treatment team, testified that appellant [*2] is diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. His statements indicate delusions of persecution and grandiosity, which intertwine in a "fixed and crystallized delusion" that there are microchips in his body. Medical records indicated appellant has considered using a knife to remove them himself. Appellant believes this is part of a plot to keep him under observation, or to take his power and wealth away. Appellant does not believe he suffers from a mental illness. He also believes he does not need to be in a hospital or take medication, although he did take medication the day before the hearing. The treatment team recommended a long-term structured stay at a regional treatment center. Dr. Carl Schwartz, the court-appointed examiner, diagnosed appellant as suffering from chronic psychotic paranoid schizophrenia. He has no insight into his mental illness. He does not present a danger to himself or others at the moment. Without intervention, he will provide necessities for himself by living in someone else's house and receiving general assistance. Schwartz described appellant as having a very flamboyant, very severe mental illness. Inwardly, he is suffering terribly, and he is [*3] constantly persecuted. At some point in his illness, he might, as a result of his disturbed thinking or commands, hurt others. While he professes to have no mental illness, Schwartz believes that appellant knows he is mentally ill. If he gets tired of it, he may kill himself. Schwartz recommended treatment with very high doses of neuroleptics. Dr. Irving Bernstein, the second court-appointed examiner, also diagnosed appellant with paranoid schizophrenia. He saw no evidence appellant would hurt anyone else. Instead, he presents a danger to himself. There was some evidence appellant has thought of doing away with himself. Appellant has also thought about removing the microchips himself on more than one occasion, but has not yet done it. Absent intervention, he can obtain food and shelter by living with his girlfriend. He is on medical assistance, but will not obtain psychiatric care on his own. Appellant's girlfriend testified he cooked, cleaned and took care of her two children. She and appellant do not fight, he has not struck anyone, and she has no concerns about leaving her children with him. He has complained that he has microchips in his body and wants them out, [*4] but has not threatened to take them out himself. He has never threatened to harm himself. If appellant left the hospital, he could stay with her. Appellant testified he had been jumped and drugged by some people. Someone put "stuff" in him, and he has had problems which felt like chest pains or needles sticking through him. Appellant testified he had asked for x-rays, explaining it was like a pacemaker, or a torture device. When told they could not help him, he left, saying he would try another hospital. Two security personnel then jumped him, handcuffed him very violently, and gave him three shots of something he was allergic to. They drove him in handcuffs to the Hennepin County Medical Center. The trial court committed appellant as mentally ill. Caufman appeals. DECISION Appellant was committed as mentally ill under Minn. Stat. � 253B.09, subd. 1 (1990). He does not challenge the determination that he suffers from a substantial psychiatric disorder. Minn. Stat. � 253B.02, subd. 13(a). Instead, his appeal focuses on whether there was a sufficient showing of a substantial likelihood of physical harm to himself or others. Minn. Stat. � 253B.02, subd. 13(b). The [*5] trial court found appellant posed a substantial likelihood of causing physical harm to himself as demonstrated by his delusional thoughts of removing the microchips from his own body using a knife. It further found that given the seriousness of his delusion, he is incapable of providing food, clothing, medical care and shelter for himself. Appellant argues the evidence presented to the trial court failed to meet the statutory standard set out in Minn. Stat. � 253B.02, subd. 13(b)(ii). That section requires the showing of a substantial likelihood of physical harm to be demonstrated by a recent attempt or threat to physically harm self or others. Appellant asserts he was not involved in any incidents of personal or property damage. He argues the finding of harm should not be based upon his delusional thoughts of removing the microchips with a knife, and he contends there was no evidence he intended to act on the belief. The trial court, which heard the testimony, took appellant's threats to remove the microchips which he believed were in his body seriously. While the belief as to the microchips was delusional, the trial court had evidence upon which to base the determination [*6] that appellant's statements as to his intent to remove them with a knife constituted a threat to harm himself within the meaning of Minn. Stat. � 253B.02, subd. 13(b)(ii). The trial court determination was not clearly erroneous. In re Peterson, 356 N.W.2d 746, 748 (Minn. App. 1984). Affirmed. 8-31-92 David F. Foley www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
