Cited by

¶12 Subsequently, this Court held an exception to the consultation obligation could be shown “if the proof is clear and convincing that it was impracticable to [explain the advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives to treatment].” In re MH 94-00592

Mental Health No. MH 94-00592, (danger to self focuses on “behavioral impairments” resulting from mental disorder (emphasis omitted)).

§ 36-540(A); In re Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592

In re Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592, ¶ 5 (App. 2003) (“[G]iving due regard to the court’s opportunity to assess witnesses’ credibility and demeanor, we will set aside factual findings only if they are clearly erroneous.”).

Cf. In re MH94-00592, (explaining that although the court erred in requiring evidence of the patient’s current behavior to determine whether court-ordered treatment was warranted, the appellate court “can sustain a decision correct in result, regardless of the underlying reason”).

n involuntary-treatment order “to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence” and will not set aside the 4 IN RE: MH2020‑001988 Decision of the Court court’s findings “unless they are clearly erroneous or unsupported by any credible evidence.” In re Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592

In re MH 2008-001188, ¶ 14 (App. 2009) (citing In re MH 94-00592, ).

In re Mental Health Case No. MH 94–00592

of Mental Health Case No. MH 94–00592

Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592

See generally Matter of Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592, -46, -48 (App. 1995) (reviewing court will uphold treatment order if supported by substantial evidence and will set aside superior court’s findings of fact only if “clearly erroneous or unsupported by any credible evidence”).

In re MH 2008-002596, ¶ 12 (App. 2009) (citing In re MH 94-00592, ).

ng her respond to me in the same manner.” 3 IN RE MH2014-002674 Opinion of the Court DISCUSSION ¶9 We will not disturb an order for treatment unless it is “clearly erroneous or unsupported by any credible evidence.” In re Mental Health Case No. MH 94–00592, (citing In re Coconino Cty.

Mental Health Case No. MH 94–00592

Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592

In re MH 94-00592, (citation omitted).

We may sustain the superior court’s decision if the result is correct, “regardless of the underlying reasoning.” In re MH 94-00592

Even if the court properly applied the law, we may vacate a decision based on factual findings that are either “clearly erroneous or unsupported by substantial evidence.” MH 2006-000749, 214 Ariz. at 321, ¶ 13 , 152 P.3d at 1204 (citing In re MH 91-00592, , ).

However, we will only disturb a court order for involuntary treatment if it is “clearly erroneous or unsupported by any credible evidence.” In re MH 94-00592

¶ 11 Appellant nonetheless contends that Dr. H. failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that it was impracticable to explain treatment alternatives and that further attempts to examine Appellant would have been futile, citing In re MH 94-00592

We will not, however, set aside an order for involuntary treatment unless it is “clearly erroneous or unsupported by any credible evidence.” In re MH 94-00592, , (citation omitted).

In re Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592

In re Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 292, , 1090 (1995); ¶ 7 , In re Maricopa County No. MH 94-00592

In re Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 292, , 1090 (1995); In re MH 2005-001290, ¶ 7 , In re Maricopa County No. MH 94-00592