J-S08021-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: J.H. :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1105 MDA 2021

Appeal from the Decree Entered July 21, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s): 

129-2021 MH

BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED MAY 10, 2022

Appellant J.H. appeals from the order extending his involuntary 

commitment for psychiatric treatment with Appellee the Wernersville State 

Hospital (WESH). Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his 

commitment pursuant to 50 P.S. § 7305. We affirm.

On September 18, 2020, Appellant was admitted to WESH. Trial Ct. 

Op., 10/25/21, at 1. On June 24, 2021, WESH filed a petition to extend 

Appellant’s involuntary commitment for an additional 180 days pursuant to 50 

P.S. § 7305 of the Mental Health Procedures Act (MHPA), 50 P.S. §§ 7101-

7503. See id. On July 16, 2021, a mental health review officer held an audiorecorded phone hearing to determine whether the commitment should be 

extended. See id. Following the hearing, the officer recommended a 

certification of involuntary inpatient treatment for up to ninety days. See id.
J-S08021-22

- 2 -

Appellant filed a petition for review of the certification pursuant to 50 

P.S. § 7109 in the Court of Common Pleas. However, because the audio 

recording was indecipherable, the trial court scheduled a de novo hearing. On 

July 21, 2021, the trial court conducted an in-person hearing. At the hearing, 

the trial court heard testimony from Appellant’s physician, Dr. Aziz Gopalani, 

Appellant’s social worker, Cheyenne Port, and Appellant.

Dr. Gopalani testified that he is Appellant’s treating psychiatrist, and 

that Appellant has a long history of mental illness and a diagnosis of 

schizoaffective disorder. See N.T. H’rg, 7/21/21 at 6. When he does not take 

his medication, Appellant hears voices. Id. at 9. Dr. Gopalani also stated 

that Appellant has been hospitalized several times since 2015, does not 

believe he is mentally ill, and does not want to take his medication. Id. at 6. 

Appellant was initially treated at Coatesville Hospital and a veterans’ hospital. 

Id. at 9-10. In March 2020, Appellant was sent to Norristown State Hospital 

after criminal charges were filed against him in Chester County. Id. at 6. 

After being declared incompetent to stand trial, Appellant was transferred to 

WESH. Id. at 7.

At WESH, Appellant was compliant with treatment and taking his 

medication. WESH policy requires that if Appellant refused his medication, the 

doctors would administer it intravenously. Id. at 7. However, it appears that 

when Appellant is released from hospitalization, he refuses his medication and 

outpatient treatment. Id. at 8-9. Dr. Gopalani testified that Appellant does 

not want to share any information regarding his housing circumstances with 
J-S08021-22

- 3 -

the treatment team. Id. at 21-22. At the time of the hearing, Dr. Gopalani

was aware that Appellant had seventeen open criminal charges, including 

burglary, terroristic threats, theft by unlawful taking, possession of an 

instrument of crime, two counts of simple assault, and recklessly endangering 

another person.

1

 Id. at 18-20. Dr. Gopalani testified that if discharged, 

Appellant would be a danger to himself and others because he does not take 

his medication and when he does not, he “becomes very wilder.” Id. at 20.

Cheyenne Port testified that she is a licensed social worker at WESH. 

Id. at 24. She is Appellant’s admitting social worker and has cared for him 

since September 2020. Id. at 24-25. She testified about Appellant’s criminal 

history, including two prior convictions in July 2016 for terroristic threats, two 

counts of harassment.2 Id. at 27. Appellant was convicted in June 2017 of 

terroristic threats and several counts of harassment. Id.

At the time of the hearing, Appellant had seventeen open charges that 

were pending at three separate dockets in the Chester County Court of 

Common Pleas. Id. at 27-28. Some of the charges stemmed from a single 

incident in November 2018, and included burglary, two counts each of 

terroristic threats, theft by unlawful taking, simple assault, and recklessly 

endangering another person. Id. at 28. 

____________________________________________

1 See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3503, 2706, 3921, 907, 2701, and 2705, respectively.

2 See 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709.
J-S08021-22

- 4 -

Further, Appellant has two pending November 2019 cases which include

charges of terroristic threats and several counts of harassment. Additionally,

Appellant has January 2019 charges for retaliation against a witness or victim 

and intimidation of a victim,3terroristic threats, stalking, 4 and harassment

that are currently pending before the trial court. Id. at 29-30. Id. at 28-29. 

Ms. Port testified that, for Appellant’s discharge, the WESH treatment 

team recommended a structured and supportive setting such as a community 

residential rehabilitation program (CRR), which is a twenty-four hour, sevenday-a-week, staffed group home. Id. at 31. The hospital is currently 

Appellant’s representative payee and Appellant has expressed suspicion and 

paranoia about going to that facility. Id. at 31-32.

Appellant testified that he is compliant with treatment and takes his 

medication. Id. at 35. However, he does not trust the hospital with his 

money. Id. Appellant averred that he was not a threat to himself or anyone 

else at the hospital and had not gotten into any fights there. Id. at 36. 

Appellant did not believe it was necessary for him to take eleven pills a day. 

Id. at 40.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court entered an order 

affirming the certification of involuntary inpatient treatment for up to ninety 

days. Trial Ct. Op. at 1. Appellant timely appealed and filed a court-ordered 

____________________________________________

3 See 18 Pa.C.S. § 4952.

4 See 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709.1.
J-S08021-22

- 5 -

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, which he subsequently amended on November 

10, 2021. The trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing Appellant’s 

claims.

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

1. Whether sufficient evidence was presented to support the 

involuntary commitment of [Appellant] where [Appellant’s] 

treating psychiatrist[’s] primary concern was [Appellant’s] 

compliance with medication and the clear and present danger 

noncompliance would pose to [Appellant’s] self or others was 

not sufficiently established and no nexus was established 

between [Appellant’s] mental illness diagnosis and his pending 

criminal charges?

Appellant’s Brief at 4 (formatting altered).5

This Court reviews determinations pursuant to the MHPA to “determine 

whether there is evidence in the record to justify the [hearing] court’s

findings.” In re S.M., 176 A.3d 927, 935 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted). 

This Court is “not bound by the hearing court’s legal conclusions and must 

reverse if the evidence does not justify the hearing court’s decision.” Com. 

ex rel. Gibson v. DiGiacinto, 439 A.2d 105, 107 (Pa. 1981).

We briefly summarize the MHPA:

The MHPA provides for involuntary emergency examination and 

treatment of persons who are “severally mentally disabled and in 

need of immediate treatment.” 50 P.S. § 7301(a). It then 

authorizes increasingly long periods of commitment for such 

persons, balanced by increasing due process protections in 

recognition of the significant deprivations of liberty at stake. 

____________________________________________

5

In Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal, he 

raised three issues. On appeal, Appellant has chosen to argue only the single 

issue presented. See Appellant’s Brief at 4. 
J-S08021-22

- 6 -

Accordingly, in applying the MHPA, we must take a balanced 

approach and remain mindful of the patient’s due process and 

liberty interests, while at the same time permitting the mental 

health system to provide proper treatment to those involuntarily 

committed to its care.

S.M., 176 A.3d at 930-31 (some citations omitted and formatting altered).

Section 7301(a) describes the circumstances under which a mentally 

disabled person may be subject to involuntary treatment:

Whenever a person is severely mentally disabled and in need of 

immediate treatment, he may be made subject to involuntary 

emergency examination and treatment. A person is severely 

mentally disabled when, as a result of mental illness, his capacity 

to exercise self-control, judgment and discretion in the conduct of 

his affairs and social relations or to care for his own personal needs 

is so lessened that he poses a clear and present danger of harm 

to others or to himself, as defined in [50 P.S. § 7301(b)].

50 P.S. § 7301(a).

Section 7301(b)(1) defines clear and present danger of harm to others, 

and Section 7301(b)(2) defines clear and present danger of harm to himself, 

in relevant part, as follows:

(1) . . . . For the purpose of this section, a clear and present 

danger of harm to others may be demonstrated by proof that the 

person has made threats of harm and has committed acts in 

furtherance of the threat to commit harm.

(2) Clear and present danger to himself shall be shown by 

establishing that within the past 30 days:

(i) the person has acted in such manner as to evidence that 

he would be unable, without care, supervision and the 

continued assistance of others, to satisfy his need for 

nourishment, personal or medical care, shelter, or selfprotection and safety, and that there is a reasonable 

probability that death, serious bodily injury or serious 
J-S08021-22

- 7 -

physical debilitation would ensue within 30 days unless 

adequate treatment were afforded under this act; . . . .

50 P.S. § 7301(b)(1), (2)(i).

Section 7304 permits court-ordered involuntary treatment for up to 

ninety days. 50 P.S. § 7304(g). Section 7304(a)(2) states the criteria for 

involuntary treatment of a person that is already subject to involuntary 

treatment:

(2) Where a petition is filed for a person already subject to 

involuntary treatment, it shall be sufficient to represent, and upon 

hearing to reestablish, that the conduct originally required by 

section [7301(b)] in fact occurred, and that his condition 

continues to evidence a clear and present danger to himself or 

others . . . . In such event, it shall not be necessary to show the 

reoccurrence of dangerous conduct, either harmful or debilitating, 

within the past 30 days.

50 P.S. § 7304(a)(2). The S.M. Court clarified Section 7304(a)(2) as follows:

[T]he petitioner need not relitigate the initial commitment and . . 

. . the trial court may consider a patient’s original commitment as 

contained in that patient’s commitment history as long as the 

patient’s commitment history shows that the requisite behavior 

occurred in the past. If the patient challenges that original 

commitment, the burden is on the patient to show that the original 

commitment was improper.

S.M., 176 A.3d at 936 (citations omitted and formatting altered).

In sum, a Section 7304(a)(2) petitioner must prove two factors. First, 

the petitioner, at a hearing, must “reestablish” the patient’s prior conduct, 

which qualified as a clear and present danger to himself, to others, or both, 

“in fact occurred.” See 50 P.S. §§ 7301(b)(1)-(2), 7304(a)(2). Second, the 
J-S08021-22

- 8 -

petitioner must establish the patient’s condition continues to evidence a clear 

and present danger to himself or others. 50 P.S. § 7304(a)(2).

Appellant argues that noncompliance with his medication, without more, 

is insufficient to prove that he is a clear and present danger to himself or 

others. See Appellant’s Brief at 11. Appellant notes that although there were

references to his criminal charges at the hearing, the record contains no 

factual basis for the charges or the manner in which they relate to his 

medication. Id. at 15. He contends that if the “clear and present danger” 

standard was to be applied this broadly, any person charged with a crime 

could find themselves deprived of their liberty when they express reluctance 

to take prescribed psychiatric medication. Id. at 18.

In support of his argument, Appellant cites Gibson, a case in which the 

appellant was institutionalized following his behavior in a group home, which 

included being caught extinguishing a burning newspaper in his room, 

possessing a piece of twisted coat hanger, and missing doses of Thorazine. 

See Gibson, 439 A.2d at 105-06. On appeal, our Supreme Court reversed 

the appellant’s conviction because the newspaper and coat hanger incidents 

were not proof of an attempt to harm himself or others, and because there 

was no evidence “to show that [the appellant’s] behavior changed as a result 

of missed doses of [Thorazine].” Id. at 107.

Additionally, Appellant cites S.M., a case in which this Court reversed 

the 30-day involuntary commitment of an appellant who had been diagnosed 

with schizoaffective bipolar disorder but did not wish to take her medication. 
J-S08021-22

- 9 -

S.M., 176 A.3d at 929, 938. At the commitment hearing, the appellant’s 

psychiatrist testified that the appellant was not sleeping or eating properly 

and had used racial slurs around other residents of the facility. Id. at 939. 

The psychiatrist did not testify as to the reasonable probability of death or 

serious bodily injury or serious physical debilitation that could occur as a result 

of the appellant’s noncompliance. Id. at 938-39.

Neither of these cases are applicable to the instant matter. Unlike the 

appellant in Gibson, Appellant has an established history of violent behavior 

resulting in criminal charges and direct testimony was presented that this is a 

result of Appellant’s failure to take his medication. Cf. Gibson, 439 A.2d at 

107; see also N.T. at 18-20, 27-30. Unlike the appellant in S.M., Appellant’s 

criminal convictions and open charges included a litany of offenses such as 

terroristic threats, harassment subjecting another to physical contact, 

burglary, theft, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, 

harassment, stalking, and retaliation against a witness which establish that,

without his medication, Appellant is a clear and present danger to himself or 

others. Cf. S.M., 176 A.3d at 939; see also N.T. at 27-30.

With respect to the nexus between Appellant’s criminal charges and his 

refusal to take his medication, the trial court explained:

Contrary to counsel’s assertion, this [c]ourt made substantial 

inquiry during the hearing relevant to this precise issue. Dr. 

Gopalani as well as the social worker, Cheyenne Port, detailed the 

nature of the seventeen open charges pending against Appellant 

ranging from assault to possessing an instrument of crime with 

intent. It is this [c]ourt’s understanding from the testimony of Dr. 

Gopalani that Appellant presents a very real risk of harm to 
J-S08021-22

- 10 -

himself and to others based on his prior history and perhaps even 

more importantly, his multiple indications and expressions that he 

will not take his medications currently or in the future without 

some level of enforcement or supervision.

Appellant’s history of refusing medication as well as his present 

indications to refuse medication in the future coupled with his 

record of pending charges concerns this [c]ourt. The credible 

testimony and evidence presented at the hearing leads this [c]ourt 

to the conclusion that there is a nexus between Appellant’s 

noncompliance with his medication and a clear and present danger 

to his own health, safety and welfare, as well as that of others. It 

was additionally established that the hospital is using diligent 

efforts to develop a release plan that would initially provide some 

supervision to ensure that Appellant takes his prescribed 

medications. 

Trial Ct. Op. at 5-6 (some formatting altered).

Based on our review of the record, we agree with the trial court’s 

conclusions. As noted by the trial court, Dr. Gopalani and Appellant testified 

that Appellant does not wish to continue taking his medication and does not 

feel that his medication is necessary. See N.T. at 8-9, 20, 40. Dr. Gopalani 

testified that while Appellant is not violent or aggressive when medicated at 

the hospital, when Appellant does not take his medication, he becomes

unpredictable and wild. Id. at 7-9, 20. Ms. Port testified extensively 

regarding Appellant’s criminal history, including his convictions and open 

charges. Id. at 27-28. Therefore, we agree with the trial court that there is 

a factual nexus between Appellant’s failure to take his medication and his 

criminal charges. Trial Ct. Op. at 5-6.

On this record, we agree with the trial court that there is sufficient 

evidence in the record to justify its findings that Appellant presents a clear 
J-S08021-22

- 11 -

and present danger to himself or others. See S.M., 176 A.3d at 935; 50 P.S. 

§§ 7301(b)(1)-(2), 7304(a)(2). Therefore, we affirm the order extending 

Appellant’s commitment.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 05/10/2022