Conservatorship of L.H.
This is an appeal by L.H., objector and appellant, from the trial court’s order on a petition under Probate Code[1] section 3201, granting Dien Mach, the chief medical physician of Patton State Hospital (Patton), petitioner and respondent, authority under section 3208 to consent on L.H.’s behalf to recommended health care procedures and treatment.
L.H. was admitted to Patton in June 2011 after a judge in Los Angeles County Superior Court declared her incompetent to stand trial on various criminal charges. While at Patton, one of its physicians determined L.H. was borderline diabetic. Because she did not want to take medication, the Patton physician agreed to test L.H.’s blood sugar level again in several months. The subsequent test showed defendant’s blood sugar level had gone up. As a result, the Patton physician recommended L.H. take medication for diabetes, as well as submit to various other medical tests and examinations. L.H. declined. At the request of the physician, L.H.’s psychiatrist at Patton tried to persuade her to take the diabetes medication. When L.H. again declined, the physician filed a petition under section 3201 to determine that L.H. lacks capacity to make a health care decision about treatment of her diabetes, and to have respondent named as L.H.’s representative. Following a hearing on that petition, at which the physician, psychiatrist, and L.H. all testified, the trial court found the allegations of the petition true and issued an order authorizing respondent to consent to the recommended treatment on L.H.’s behalf.
In this appeal, L.H. contends the trial court’s order is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree and, therefore, will affirm.[2]
Comments on Conservatorship of L.H.