City of Milwaukee v. Wash. (In re Wash.) - 2007 WI 104, 304 Wis. 2d 98, 735 N.W.2d 111

Rule:

While Wis. Stat. § 252.07(9)(a) does not explicitly authorize placement in jail of persons with noninfectious tuberculosis who are noncompliant with a prescribed treatment regimen, the plain language of the statute also does not preclude such a placement. The statute authorizes confinement to a "facility," a word not defined in Wis. Stat. ch. 250 (health administration) or Wis. Stat. ch. 252 (communicable diseases) of the statutes, nor in the tuberculosis subchapter of the administrative code. The supreme court turns to a dictionary to ascertain the meaning of the word. "Facility" as "something (as a hospital, machinery, plumbing) that is built, constructed, installed or established to perform some particular function or to serve or facilitate some particular end. Under this commonly accepted meaning of the term, "facility" is broad enough to encompass many placement options, including jail.

Facts:

In 2005, Ruby Washington was diagnosed with tuberculosis. During this time, Washington was living in a shelter and had no fixed address. The staff at the Keenan Health Center Tuberculosis Control Clinic ("TB Clinic") provided Washington with bus tickets to ensure that she would return for periodic directly-observed therapy. Washington did not show up for her next two appointments to receive her medication, and could not be located. The City of Milwaukee Health Department ("Department") issued Washington a directly-observed therapy order ("treatment order") and an isolation order, requesting that Washington stay at the Medical Center. After Washington threatened to leave the Medical Center, the City of Milwaukee petitioned the circuit court under Wis. Stat. § 252.07(9) for enforcement of the treatment and isolation orders. The circuit court found that if Washington continued to refuse treatment for tuberculosis she would become contagious and threaten the public health, and it entered an order confining Washington in a criminal justice facility (CJF) for failure to comply with prior court orders for treatment of tuberculosis. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Washington sought review, contending that because the purpose of confinement for those with tuberculosis who did not comply with a treatment regimen was nonpunitive, Wis. Stat. § 252.07(9)(a) (2005-06) should be construed to preclude confinement to a jail in the absence of express statutory authorization for such a placement.

Issue:

Did Wis. Stat. § 252.07(9)(a) (2005-06) preclude confinement of a tuberculosis patient to a criminal justice facility?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court held that Wis. Stat. § 252.07(9)(a) authorized confinement to a jail for a person with noninfectious tuberculosis who was at a high risk of developing infectious tuberculosis and fails to comply with a prescribed treatment regimen, provided the jail was a place where proper care and treatment will be provided and the spread of disease will be prevented, and that no less restrictive alternative existed to jail confinement. The Court further held that a circuit court may take into account the cost of placement options when determining the place of confinement under § 252.07(9), but only after determining that two or more placement options fulfill the statutory requirements of proper medical treatment and disease prevention, and that none of these options was significantly less restrictive than the other. In this case, the Court determined that the circuit court engaged in a careful, deliberative process in which it demonstrated appropriate concern for both the public health of the community and the care and treatment of Ruby Washington. The Court thus affirmed the decision of the court of appeals.