Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MH-1147 | October 10, 2018 Page 1 of 3

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Darren Bedwell

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Andrew B. Howk

Matthew M. Schappa

Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & 

Lyman

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Civil 

Commitment of A.L.,

Appellant,

v.

St. Vincent Hospital and Health 

Care Center, Inc., St. Vincent 

Stress Center,

Appellee.

October 10, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-MH-1147

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Kelly Scanlan, 

Commissioner

Trial Court Cause No.

49D08-1804-MH-14159

Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MH-1147 | October 10, 2018 Page 2 of 3

Statement of the Case

[1] A.L. (“A.L.”) appeals the trial court’s order temporarily involuntarily 

committing her. She specifically argues that the order is defective because it 

lacked the trial judge’s signature and contained only the signature of a 

commissioner. Concluding that A.L. has waived appellate review of this issue

because she failed to timely object to the commissioner’s order, we affirm the 

trial court’s order.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether A.L. has waived appellate review of her argument

because she failed to timely object to the commissioner’s order.

Facts and Decision

[3] In April 2018, Commissioner Kelly M. Scanlon (“Commissioner Scanlon”) 

signed an order temporarily committing A.L. to St. Vincent Hospital and 

Health Care Center. A.L. appeals and argues that this order is defective 

because it contained only the signature of Commissioner Scanlon and lacked 

the required trial judge’s signature. See INDIANA CODE § 33-23-5-8. The State 

responds that A.L. has waived appellate review of this issue because she did not 

timely object to the commissioner’s order. We agree with the State.

[4] “‘[I]t has been the long-standing policy of [the Indiana Supreme Court] to view 

the authority of the officer appointed to try the case not as affecting the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MH-1147 | October 10, 2018 Page 3 of 3

jurisdiction of the court’ – and so ‘the failure of a party to object at trial to the 

authority of a court officer to enter a final appealable order waives the issue for 

appeal.’” In re Adoption of I.B., 32 N.E.3d 1164, 1173 n.6 (Ind. 2015) (quoting 

Floyd v. State, 650 N.E.2d 28, 32 (Ind. 1994)). “[A]ny objection to the authority 

of an adjudicative officer must be raised at the first instance the irregularity 

occurs, or at least within such time as the tribunal is able to remedy the defect.” 

City of Indianapolis v. Hicks, 932 N.E.2d 227, 231 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citing 

Floyd, 650 N.E.2d at 33), trans. denied. In Hicks, this Court held that a party had 

waived a claim of error because it failed to timely object to an order signed by a 

magistrate but not a judge. Hicks, 932 N.E.2d at 231. Here, as in Hicks, A.L. 

failed to timely object to the commissioner’s order. A.L. has therefore waived 

appellate review of this issue.

[5] Affirmed.

[6] Najam, J., and Crone, J., concur.