Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-2330 | April 29, 2020 Page 1 of 10

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

Christopher Kunz

Marion County Public Defender

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Jenny R. Buchheit

Stephen E. Reynolds

Sean T. Dewey

Ice Miller, LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Civil 

Commitment of M.T.

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

Options Behavioral Health 

Systems,

Appellee-Petitioner.

April 29, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-MH-2330

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Steven R. 

Eichholtz, Judge

The Honorable Melanie Kendrick, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49D08-1908-MH-34159

Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-2330 | April 29, 2020 Page 2 of 10

Statement of the Case

[1] M.T. (“M.T.”) appeals the trial court’s order for his involuntary regular civil 

commitment.1 M.T. argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his

regular commitment because Options Behavioral Health Systems (“Options”) 

did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was “gravely disabled,” 

as defined by INDIANA CODE § 12-7-2-96. Concluding that there was sufficient 

evidence, we affirm

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s order 

for M.T.’s involuntary regular civil commitment.

Facts

[3] In early August 2019, thirty-nine-year-old M.T. traveled from Indianapolis to 

Chicago. While in Chicago, M.T. spent his days at the library and his nights 

sleeping on the streets. Eventually, M.T. called his brother, V.L., and mother 

1

In Civil Commitment of T.K. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 27 N.E.3d 271, 273 n.1 (Ind. 2015), the Indiana 

Supreme Court explained:

In Indiana, an adult person may be civilly committed either voluntarily or involuntarily. 

Involuntary civil commitment may occur under for circumstances if certain statutorily 

regulated conditions are satisfied: (1) “Immediate Detention” by law enforcement for up to 

24 hours; “Emergency Detention” for up to 72 hours; (3) “Temporary Commitment” for 

up to 90 days; and (4) “Regular Commitment” for an indefinite period of time that may 

exceed 90 days.

(internal citations omitted). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-2330 | April 29, 2020 Page 3 of 10

and informed them where he was. V.L. and M.T.’s mother drove to Chicago to 

pick up M.T. As they drove back to Indianapolis, M.T. explained that “the 

voices” had told him to go to Chicago and to not take his medication. (Tr. 20). 

V.L. and M.T.’s mother encouraged M.T. to go to the hospital after his 

Chicago trip, but he refused.

[4] On August 15, 2019, M.T. was found walking in the middle of a busy street 

with his eyes closed, saying that he was a rapist and a murderer. The police 

took him to Community Hospital, and a Community Hospital physician filed 

an application for emergency detention. The next day, M.T. was transferred to 

Options. Options then filed a Report Following Emergency Detention. This 

report included a Physician’s statement signed by Dr. Richard Payne (“Dr. 

Payne”), who stated that M.T. was suffering from Schizophrenia and Bipolar 

Disorder and was gravely disabled. The trial court ordered M.T. to be detained 

for an evidentiary hearing to be held on August 22. 

[5] At the evidentiary hearing, Dr. Payne and V.L. testified. Dr. Payne testified

that he was a psychiatrist with Options, and that M.T. had a diagnosis of 

Paranoid Schizophrenia. Dr. Payne testified that M.T. “presents [as] very 

paranoid. He talks to himself when others, you know, when there is no one 

there[,]” and that M.T. was “very guarded.” (Tr. 7). Dr. Payne explained that

upon his admission to Options, M.T. was expressing suicidal ideations. 

According to Dr. Payne, M.T. had refused to eat or drink water for several 

days, and his refusal was “severe” and stemmed from his mental illness. (Tr. 

9). Dr. Payne testified that he was concerned about M.T. because of his 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-2330 | April 29, 2020 Page 4 of 10

Paranoid Schizophrenia. Specifically, Dr. Payne explained that “[M.T.] 

believes that these things are so real[,]” and that he will take action to alleviate 

his paranoia. (Tr. 9). Further, that action may involve harming “the people 

who he feels may be after him or to end his own life.” (Tr. 9-10).

[6] Dr. Payne further testified that M.T. had no insight into his mental illness. He

explained that this lack of insight affected M.T.’s ability to seek care or take 

medication. Further, Dr. Payne stated that M.T. believed he did not need 

medication, and that this belief has led to multiple hospital admissions. 

According to Dr. Payne, M.T. had been hospitalized ten times since 2013. Dr. 

Payne believed that M.T. had been hospitalized five times in 2019, and that,

prior to being hospitalized in August 2019, M.T.’s most recent hospitalization 

was in February 2019. As a result of the February hospitalization, M.T. was 

temporarily committed; it terminated in May 2019. 

[7] When asked how M.T.’s Paranoid Schizophrenia impacts his judgment or 

ability to function independently, Dr. Payne explained that M.T. was unable to 

make simple decisions, did not currently have a job, and would not be able to 

hold a job because “he could not even respond to simple tasks that we were 

trying to get him to do.” (Tr. 10). Dr. Payne stated that based on his treatment 

of M.T., he believed that M.T. was “[g]ravely disabled and severely disabled[]” 

and that “[t]his is someone [he] worr[ies] about extremely.” (Tr. 11). When 

asked if M.T. presented a substantial risk of harming himself, Dr. Payne 

answered in the affirmative. Dr. Payne explained that a regular commitment 

was necessary because:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-2330 | April 29, 2020 Page 5 of 10

[M.T.] has all of these hospitalizations just this year and he has 

had over – about ten since two thousand and thirteen. You do not 

get too many chances with a schizophrenic. Usually, to get well in 

that time – usually something happens. You know, a lot of them 

end up dead or they get so frightened and paranoid they feel that 

they have to attack you or attack random people.

(Tr. 12). Dr. Payne testified that, if the regular commitment were granted, he

planned to put M.T. on a long acting injectable medication. He further

recommended that M.T. remain inpatient “for several months at first” and then

be “transfer[red] to a state facility where he could be treated longer because he 

just had not gotten well.” (Tr. 13-14). Dr. Payne indicated that with treatment, 

M.T.’s prognosis would be “[s]ubstantially better than it [was] now[,]” and 

without treatment, “his prognosis [was] very poor[.]” (Tr. 14). 

[8] M.T.’s older brother, V.L., testified about M.T.’s trip to Chicago when he spent 

his days at the library and nights sleeping on the street. V.L. expressed 

concerns regarding whether M.T. could independently support himself. He 

explained that M.T. had previously lived in an apartment but had been evicted

because he did not pay his rent. V.L. further explained that their mother had 

allowed M.T. to live with her, but that M.T. did not want to do so, preferring 

instead to stay at the Wheeler Mission or to sleep on the streets. When asked 

whether his brother had been taking his medication or had otherwise been 

compliant with his treatment, V.L. testified that M.T. had not. Later in V.L.’s 

testimony, he explained that in 2005, M.T. had claimed that voices had told 

M.T. to jump out of a three-story-window, which he acted on. Additionally, in 

2016, M.T. claimed the voices told him to kill himself, leading M.T. to drive 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-2330 | April 29, 2020 Page 6 of 10

into a highway median. V.L. stated that his brother’s illness and suicidal 

behavior were “a vicious cycle.” (Tr. 21). 

[9] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that M.T. was “gravely 

disabled,” and granted the petition for his regular commitment. As a basis for 

its decision, the court explained as follows:

The court finds that the testimony and evidence today from 

the doctor as well as the brother and the fact that [M.T.] 

was on a previous commitment this year in February – it 

expired in May. And there ha[ve] been at least two if not 

three possible admissions since then. There have been five 

total admissions this year alone. Shows that would be the 

least restrictive alternative at this point is a regular 

commitment as a temporary commitment gave [M.T.] an 

opportunity to follow up with treatment on his own and he 

did not do so. The multiple admissions show that – or also 

show that he is – has a substantial impairment in his 

judgment that is leading to an obvious deterioration in his 

ability to function as well as care for himself. Testimony 

that he has not been eating in addition to again, the multiple 

admissions recently show that the respondent is gravely 

disabled. The court will grant a regular commitment at this 

point and find it is the least restrictive. 

(Tr. 25). The court also ordered that M.T. take all medications as prescribed, 

attend all clinic sessions as scheduled, and maintain his address and phone 

number with the court. M.T. now appeals.

Opinion

[10] On appeal, M.T. contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his 

involuntary regular commitment because Options did not prove by clear and 

convincing evidence that he was “gravely disabled.” “‘[T]he purpose of civil 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-2330 | April 29, 2020 Page 7 of 10

commitment proceedings is dual: to protect the public and to ensure the rights 

of the person whose liberty is at stake.’” T.K. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 27 

N.E.3d 271, 273 (Ind. 2015) (quoting In re Commitment of Roberts, 723 N.E.2d 

474, 476 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)). The liberty interest at stake in a civil 

commitment proceeding goes beyond a loss of one’s physical freedom, and 

given the serious stigma and adverse social consequences that accompany such 

physical confinement, a proceeding for an involuntary civil commitment is 

subject to due process requirements. Id. 

[11] To satisfy the requirements of due process, the facts justifying an involuntary 

commitment must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. In re 

Commitment of G.M., 743 N.E.2d 1148, 1151 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). Clear and 

convincing evidence is defined as an intermediate standard of proof greater than 

a preponderance of the evidence and less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 

T.D. v. Eskenazi Midtown Cmty. Mental Health Ctr., 40 N.E.3d 507, 510 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2015). In order to be clear and convincing, the existence of a fact must be 

highly probable. Id. When we review the sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting an involuntary commitment, we will affirm if, “considering only the 

probative evidence and the reasonable inferences supporting it, without 

weighing evidence or assessing witness credibility, a reasonable trier of fact 

could find [the necessary elements] proven by clear and convincing evidence.” 

T.K., 27 N.E.3d at 273. (quotation and citation omitted). 

[12] To obtain an involuntary commitment, a petitioner is “required to prove by 

clear and convincing evidence that: (1) the individual is mentally ill and either 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-2330 | April 29, 2020 Page 8 of 10

dangerous or gravely disabled; and (2) detention or commitment of that 

individual is appropriate.” IND. CODE § 12-26-2-5(e) (format altered). Thus, 

here, Options had the burden of proving subsections (1) and (2) by clear and 

convincing evidence. 

[13] M.T. does not dispute that he is mentally ill. Rather, he argues that there was 

insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that, as a result of 

his mental illness, he is gravely disabled. Gravely disabled is defined as: 

a condition in which an individual, as a result of mental illness, is 

in danger of coming to harm because the individual:

(1) is unable to provide for that individual’s food, clothing, 

shelter, or other essential human needs; or

(2) has a substantial impairment or an obvious deterioration 

of that individual’s judgment, reasoning, or behavior that 

results in the individual’s inability to function independently. 

IND. CODE § 12-7-2-96. Because this statute is written in the disjunctive, a trial 

court’s finding of grave disability survives if we find that there was sufficient 

evidence to prove either that the individual was unable to provide for his basic 

needs or that his judgment, reasoning, or behavior is so impaired or 

deteriorated that it results in his inability to function independently. Civil 

Commitment of W.S. v. Eskenazi Health, Midtown Cmty. Health, 23 N.E.3d 29, 34 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. 

[14] M.T. asserts that the evidence does not show that he was “gravely disabled.” 

Specifically, he argues that the court “stated two reasons for finding that M.T. 

was gravely disabled – he has had multiple hospital admissions and has not 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-2330 | April 29, 2020 Page 9 of 10

been eating[]” and that neither one of these reasons supported a finding of grave 

disability. (M.T.’s Br. 9). In response, Options argues that there was sufficient 

evidence that M.T. was “gravely disabled.” We agree with Options.

[15] The record reveals that there was evidence that M.T.’s judgment, reasoning, or 

behavior was so impaired or deteriorated that it results in his inability to 

function independently. Specifically, M.T. was found walking in the middle of 

a busy street with his eyes closed, saying that he was a rapist and a murderer. 

Dr. Payne testified that M.T. suffers from Paranoid Schizophrenia and that he 

was “very paranoid[]” and “guarded.” (Tr. 7). The doctor explained that when 

M.T. arrived at Options, M.T. expressed suicidal ideations, and refused to eat 

or drink water for several days. Dr. Payne explained that M.T.’s refusal was 

“severe” and stemmed from his mental illness. (Tr. 9). When asked how 

M.T.’s Paranoid Schizophrenia impacts his judgment or ability to function 

independently, Dr. Payne explained that M.T. was unable to make simple 

decisions and would not be able to hold a job because he could not respond to 

simple tasks.

[16] Additionally, there was evidence that M.T. was unable to provide for his basic 

needs. Dr. Payne indicated that M.T. had no insight into his mental illness, 

and that this lack of insight affected M.T.’s ability to seek care or take 

medication because he did not believe he needed medication. Furthermore, 

V.L. explained that he did not believe that M.T. could independently support 

himself because M.T. previously had lived in an apartment but had been evicted 

because he did not pay his rent. V.L. further explained that their mother 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-2330 | April 29, 2020 Page 10 of 10

allowed M.T. to live with her, but that M.T. did not want to do so, preferring to 

stay at the Wheeler Mission or to sleep on the streets. 

[17] Based upon the record, we conclude that clear and convincing evidence 

supports the trial court’s determination that M.T. was gravely disabled for 

purposes of his involuntary regular commitment. See, e.g., Golub v. Giles, 814 

N.E.2d 1034, 1039 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (patient’s refusal to accept his mental 

illness and cooperate with his treatment, paired with his history of mental 

health issues and destructive behavior, was sufficient to support a finding of 

grave disability), trans. denied. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s 

commitment order.

[18] Affirmed.

Bradford, C.J., and Baker, J., concur.