Cited by

No. MH-1140-6-93, (due process claims raised for the first time on appeal are waived) (citing cases).

ental Health No. MH2009-002120, ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (“We generally do not consider issues, even constitutional issues, argued for the first time on appeal.”); n.7 ¶ 59 (2004) (stating that the invited error doctrine exists to prevent a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from that error on appeal); In re MH–1140–6–93, (finding alleged due process violations were waived as arguments because they were raised for the first time on appeal).

Action No. MH-1140-6-93, - 68 (App. 1993) (although involuntary-commitment statutes must be strictly construed, we will not do so if result is contrary to legislative intent); (although strict construction applies, we broadly construe requirements in determining if compl

No. MH-1140-6-93., See In re MH2009-002120, ¶¶ 10–16 (App. 2010) (applying this principle to A.R.S § 36–533(B)); C.f. In re MH2015-003266, ¶ 10 (App. 2016) (excusing a physical exam requirement “if the patient refuses or other circumstances render compliance impracticable”).

No. MH-1140-6-93, see In re MH2011-000914, ¶ 11 (App. 2012) (holding patient cannot thwart examination and later claim State did not meet its burden).

Action No. MH-1140-6-93, (explaining we will affirm on substantial evidence); In re MH 2006-000749, ¶ 13 (App. 2007) (explaining we will set aside clearly erroneous or unsupported factual findings).

Mental Health No. MH–1140–6–93

In reviewing the record to determine whether the order is supported by substantial evidence, see Pima County Mental Health Service Action No. MH–1140–6–93, (citing Commitment of an Alleged Mentally Disordered Person MH 91–00558, ), “[w]e view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s judgment.” Cimarron Foothills Cmty.

Mental Health No. MH-1140-6-93, -68, -87 (App. 1993).

7 IN THE MATTER OF GARY P. Decision of the Court (quoting In re MH 94-00592, 182 Ariz. at 446, 897 P.2d at 748); see also In re MH-1140-6-93, P.2d 284 (App. 1993) (upholding involuntary commitment order, although physicians were unable to explain the advantages and disadvantages of treatment alternatives to the patient, because mental health officials are not required to “engage in a confrontation with a mentally ill patient or have the patient physica

Compare In re MH-1140-6-93, , (physician not required to “engage in a confrontation with a mentally ill patient or have the patient physically restrained” to conduct an examination) with MH 2008-000438, 220 Ariz. at 281, ¶ 18, 205 P.3d at 1128 (proceedings based on affidavit submitted without further effort to e

See Maricopa County No. MH 2007-001236, n. 10 , , 425 n. 10 (clarifying its decision and noting, “[w]e do not imply that a patient can prevent the examinations and then claim the petitioner failed to meet its burden”); cf. In re Pima County Mental Health No. MH-1140-6-93, -68 , -87 (App.1993) (statute requiring explanation of treatment options does not require mental health professionals to engage in confronta *99 tion with mentally ill patient).

(holding that appellant waived her argument that she did not receive a continuous simultaneous translation of the hearing by failing to object in the trial court); In re MH XXXX-XXXXXX, 220 Ariz. at 280 n.4, ¶ 18, 205 P.3d at 1127 n.4 (finding waiver of argument that physician did not explain the advantages and disadvantages of accepting treatment); In re MH-1140-6-93, , (finding alleged due process violations were waived as arguments because they were raised for the first time on appeal).

Compare In re MH-1440-6-93, , (refusing to consider on appeal due process challenges not made at trial) with In re MH 2006-000023, -49, ¶¶ 8-11 , -70 (App.2007) (considering statutory notice issue despite failure to object at trial).

In reviewing the record to determine whether the order is supported by substantial evidence, see Pima County Mental Health Service Action No. MH-1140-6-93, , (citing Commitment of an Alleged Mentally Disordered Person MH 91-00558, , ), “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the order.” Cimarron Foothills Cmty.

In reviewing the record to determine whether the order is supported by substantial evidence, see Pima County Mental Health Service Action No. MH-1140-6-93, , (citing Commitment of an Alleged Mentally Disordered Person MH 91-00558, , ), "we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the order."

In re Appeal in Pima County Mental Health Service Action No. MH 1140-6-93

Action No. MH-1140-6-93, , (“Statutes providing for involuntary commitment on the basis of mental illness must be strictly construed.”).