A recent appellate court decision has upheld a lower court’s order permitting the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication to an individual under protective placement, citing concerns about threats of harm to others. The ruling addresses ongoing questions about the standards required for such orders and highlights the role of expert testimony in determining dangerousness in mental health cases.
The appeal was filed by L.J.F.G., referred to as “Emily” in court documents, against Winnebago County in Wisconsin. The decision, dated April 8, 2026, was issued by Judge Grogan of the Court of Appeals District I, following earlier proceedings before Judge Daniel J. Bissett in Winnebago County Circuit Court.
According to the court filing, Emily has a long history of mental illness, including diagnoses of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. In January 2021, Winnebago County petitioned for permanent guardianship and protective placement due to incompetency; both requests were granted by March 2021. In May 2022, the circuit court approved an initial involuntary medication order at the county’s request. That order was stayed pending appeal but ultimately affirmed in April 2023 after review by higher courts.
In February 2025, as part of Emily’s annual due process review under State ex rel. Watts v. Combined Community Services Board (known as a ‘Watts’ review), Winnebago County again sought an involuntary medication order. Dr. Jagadeeswana Musunuru was appointed by the circuit court to conduct an independent evaluation and provide reports on Emily’s condition and need for psychotropic medication.
At a hearing held in May 2025, Dr. Musunuru testified that he had evaluated Emily via Zoom and reviewed her treatment records and prior evaluations. He stated that Emily suffered from chronic mental illness spanning over three decades and described her as incapacitated with likely permanent impairment. According to his testimony, Emily did not consistently take prescribed medications and exhibited cognitive problems such as forgetfulness and inability to care for herself.
Dr. Musunuru further explained that Emily’s diagnosis had shifted toward schizoaffective disorder with symptoms worsening over time. He noted she experienced mood changes leading to aggression or violence and required close supervision due to frequent discussions about harming herself or others: “she gets … mood changes from time to time and … can be aggressive[ and] violent,” he said during his testimony.
The physician detailed instances where Emily made threats during his evaluation: “She is talking about killing [a] few people[,]” including “her husband, and her psychiatrist.” His written reports submitted into evidence also referenced similar statements: “She has been talking about killing and suing [a] lot of the people”; “She [has] verbalized attacking, suing and wish of killing.” Dr. Musunuru concluded that psychotropic medication was necessary for symptom control despite potential side effects like drowsiness or dizziness because alternatives would not address her needs effectively.
Randall Herman, a professional counselor who worked with Emily at Trempealeau County Health Care Center, also testified at the hearing. He reported that while he had not witnessed physical aggression or self-injury within the past year, Emily could be verbally abusive toward staff—a behavior he attributed more to frustration than targeted hostility.
During closing arguments before the circuit court, Winnebago County cited Dr. Musunuru’s testimony regarding threats made by Emily as justification for continued protective placement and involuntary medication orders. The guardian ad litem echoed these points, referencing specific threats described during medical evaluations.
Emily’s counsel argued that neither Dr. Musunuru nor Mr. Herman provided concrete examples satisfying statutory requirements for dangerousness under Wisconsin law—specifically WISCONSIN STATUTE § 55.14(3)(e) referencing § 51.20(1)(a)2.a-e—and characterized their accounts as vague or lacking direct observation of harmful acts.
The circuit court ultimately found clear and convincing evidence supporting both protective placement continuation and involuntary administration of psychotropic medication based largely on Dr. Musunuru’s testimony regarding explicit threats made by Emily: “He does reference in his report a number of times about her talking about killing other people…I do think that there is that type of dangerousness with regards to those threats of harm.”
On appeal, Emily challenged only whether sufficient evidence existed for dangerousness as defined under state statutes—not challenging her protective placement itself but contesting whether her statements amounted to a substantial probability of physical harm justifying forced medication.
The appellate decision confirmed that while neither trial nor appellate courts cited statutory language verbatim during proceedings, references in testimony clearly linked findings back to legal standards requiring proof that others are placed “in reasonable fear of violent behavior” through “recent overt act[s], attempt[s], or threat[s]” per WISCONSIN STATUTE § 51.20(1)(a)2.b.
After reviewing all submitted evidence—including detailed accounts from Dr. Musunuru—the appeals court determined it was reasonable for lower courts to infer valid concerns for others’ safety based on repeated threats articulated directly during psychiatric evaluations: “threatening to kill people…certainly qualifies as a threat to do harm.” As such, it ruled that Winnebago County met its burden under state law by clear and convincing evidence.
Attorneys involved include Samuel A. Christensen (Clerk of Court), with Judge Daniel J. Bissett presiding at circuit level; appellate case number is 2025AP2645-FT.
Source: 2025AP2645_Winnebago_County_LJFG_Opinion_Wisconsin_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
