specially concurring.
[¶ 26] I concur in the result.
[¶ 27] I agree with the majority’s conclusion the district court should be affirmed. I disagree with the majority’s conclusion the issue was not sufficiently articulated at the district court to be preserved for argument on appeal. Majority opinion, ¶ 16. I instead agree with the dissent that the issue suffers “inartful articulation” but is reviewable. (Kapsner, J., dissenting, ¶ 20).
[If 28] The language of the applicable statute states in pertinent part:
“As a part of the request [to treat an individual under a mental health treatment order with prescribed medication] the treating psychiatrist and another licensed physician, physician assistant, psychiatrist, or advanced practice registered nurse not involved in the current diagnosis or treatment of the patient shall certify [four items].”
N.D.C.C. § 25.03.1-18.1(1)(a)(1)-(4). Neither the majority nor the dissent holds or say they would hold that the four items were not certified. See Majority opinion, ¶¶ 3, 11; Kapsner, J., dissenting, ¶ 22. Rather, their disagreement is whether two medical practitioners made the required certification. Id.
[¶ 29] Here, the checkbox form and accompanying letter were filed in the court’s electronic case management system together as one document. As described by the majority, those documents when read together contain ihformation from which the district court reasonably .could have concluded a statutorily compliant certification had been made: ■
“The form contained boxes to check regarding the refusal of medication and the capacity to make a responsible decision about the treatment with medication. Neither box was .checked, and the form was not dated. Attached to the form was -a letter dated February, 3, 2017, signed by Dr. Yabut. In his letter, Dr. Yabut stated • ‘[F.M.G.] was. medication noncompliant.’ The letter continued, ‘[F.M.G.] remains medication non-*858compliant. Thus, we are petitioning the court for involuntary medication so she can finally be treated. The medications that we are going for are Haloperidol, Risperidone, Paliperidone, Olanzapine and Aripiprazole.’ (Emphasis added.)”
Majority opinion, ¶ 3. From this evidence I would conclude the dual medical provider certification required by N.D.C.C. § 25-03.1-18(1)(a) has been satisfied, and the district court should be affirmed.
[¶ 30] Daniel J. Crothers