Cited by

DECISION When reviewing a district court’s order to administer neuroleptic medicat ion, this court “review[s] the record in the light most favorable to the district court’s decision” and 3 will “affirm the district court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous.”

Compare (noting that we review the record “ in the light most favorable to the district court’s decision” and affirm “the district court’s findings un less they are clearly erroneous ”), with -01 (Minn. App. 2011) (noting that an argument conce

772-73 (Minn. App. 2005).

See In re Civil Commitment of Raboin , (citing 1989 Minn. Laws ch. 282, art. 2, § 100).

Since Price, however, the legislature amended the MCTA “to include a judicial procedure for authorizing the administration of neuroleptic medication to unconsenting patients.” In re Civil Commitment of Raboin

5 D E C I S I O N When reviewing a district court’s order to administer neuroleptic medication, “[w]e review the record in the light most favorable to the district court’s decision” and “affirm the district court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous.” (affirming the district court’s incapacity determination because the finding of incapacity was not clearly erroneous ).

This distinguishes the matter from -73 (Minn. App. 2005), in which this court held that the district court erred by failing to appoint a substitute decision-maker despite a request ma de by the patient.

[and w]e will affirm the district court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous.” (citation omitted).

d 767, 769 (Minn. App. 2005).

When analyzing a district court’s order to administer neuroleptic medication, “[w]e review the record in the light most favorable to the district court’s decision” and “affirm the district court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous.”