Mental health treatment; Person requiring mental health treatment; “Hearsay data”; In re MAT; MRE 1101(b)(10); Scope of assisted outpatient treatment (AOT)

The court held that “the probate court did not clearly err by finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that respondent continued to be a person requiring treatment because she was unable to attend to her basic physical needs, such as housing and medication, as a result of her mental health conditions.” It also did not plainly err in allowing a psychiatrist (Dr. K) “to partially testify on the basis of statements in respondent’s records.” Finally, it found that “the probate court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a modest AOT plan that complied with the statutory requirements.” As to the person requiring treatment finding, respondent “continued to struggle with paranoia and accepting her schizophrenia diagnosis, despite having a diagnosis for at least three years. Respondent further informed Dr. [K] that she did not need her medication, and she struggled to find stable housing in the month leading up to the hearing.” Respondent argued “that the probate court plainly erred by permitting Dr. [K] to testify, in part, on the basis of hearsay data in the form of the statements in respondent’s mental health records.” The court rejected her “argument that MRE 1101(b)(10) does not permit hearsay data in this type of mental health proceeding.” The court noted that “MAT clarifies that under MRE 1101(b)(10), an examining physician may testify about documents containing hearsay data that formed the basis for his or her opinions, even when the hearsay data is the primary basis for the expert’s opinion. Dr. [K] personally examined respondent on [1/17/25], thus meeting the requirement of MCL 330.1561(1). While Dr. [K] relied substantially on respondent’s records, he also explained that respondent made concerning statements to him during her interview, including that she stopped taking her medications and did not accept her diagnosis.” Affirmed.