J

- A34045

- 15

NON
- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION
- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: D.C.W. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: D.C.W.

No. 1218 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered June 12 , 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Civil Division at No(s): 2015

- 1994

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OTT, J., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED JANUARY 06, 2016
Appellant D.C.W. appeals from the order entered in the Centre County
Court of Common Pleas, which denied his petition for review of certification
to involuntary inpatient mental health treatment. We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history o f this appeal are as follows.
On June 2, 2015, the Office of Mental Health and Intellectual Disabilities of
Centre County filed a petition seeking extended involuntary treatment of
Appellant pursuant to Section 7304 of the Mental Health Procedures Act
(“M HPA”). 1 The next day, a mental health review officer conducted a
hearing in which Dr. Carol Eidsvoog, staff psychiatrist at Rockview Mental
Health Unit, testified that Appellant suffers from anorexia nervosa, the

____________________________________________

1 50 P.S. § 7304.J

- A34045

- 15

- 2

-

binging and purging type. 2 N.T., 6/3/15, at 7. Dr. Eidsvoog testified that
Appellant had purged to the point of severe electrolyte abnormalities and
dehydration and contraction alkalosis, and that without care and assistance,
Appellant’s behavior could lead to death, disability or serious physi cal
debilitation within thirty (30) days. Id. at 7

- 8.
Appellant testified that he had been doing very well eating and keeping
his food down, and that he felt healthy. Id. at 14. He further testified that
he still had certain struggles at certain times of the day, but that he wanted
to go home as soon as possible. Id. at 14

- 15. After the hearing, the mental health review officer granted the petition to extend Appellant’s involuntary treatment for ninety (90) days. On June
10, 2015, Appellant filed a p etition for review of certification to involuntary
inpatient mental health treatment in the Centre County Court of Common
Pleas. On June 12, 2015, the court denied Appellant’s petition. On July 7,
2015, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. On July 13, 2015, the trial
court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of

____________________________________________

2 Anorexia nervosa is defined as “ an eating disorder usually occurring in adolescent females, characterized by refusal to maintain a normal minimal body weight, fear of gaining weight or becoming obese, disturbance of body image, undue reliance on body weight or shape for self

- evaluation, and amenorrhea. The two subtypes include one characterized by dieting and exercise alone and one also characterized by binge eating and purging.” D ORLAND’S M EDICAL D ICTIONARY FOR H EALTH C ONSUMERS (2007), available at , http://medical

- dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/anorexia.J

- A34045

- 15

- 3

-

on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and he timely complied on July 17,

2015.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

WHETHER THE TRIAL COUR T LACKED CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE FROM WHICH IT COULD CONCLUDE FORCED PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT UNDER THE MENTAL HEALTH PROCEDURES ACT WAS NECESSARY WHERE IT WAS UNDISPUTED THAT UNFORCED MEDICAL ATTENTION WAS READILY AVAILABLE AT THE PRISON TO ACHIEVE THE TREATMENT OBJECTIVES SOUGHT BY THE PRISON?
Appellant’s Brief at 4. 3
Appellant argues that the state failed to establish, by clear and
convincing evidence, that Appellant was in need of involuntary treatment
when he was voluntarily working on techniques designed to abate his self

injurious behaviors. We disagree.

“ In reviewing a trial court order for involuntary commitment, we must
determine whether there is evidence in the record to justify the court’s
findings.” In re T.T. , 875 A.2d 1123, 1126 (Pa.Super.2005) (quoting

Commonwealth ex rel. Gibson v. DiGiacinto , 439 A.2d 105, 107
(Pa.1981)). “Although we must accept the trial court’s findings of fact that

____________________________________________

3 Although Appellan t’s 90 day period of involuntary commitment has ended, Appellant’s issue is not moot because it is capable of repetition and may evade review. See In re Woodside , 699 A.2d 1293, 1296 (Pa.Super.1997).J

- A34045

- 15

- 4

-

have support in the record, we are not bound by its legal conclusions from

those facts.” Id.
The MHPA provides:
§ 7304. Court
- ordered involuntary treatment not to exceed ninety days
(a) Persons for Whom Application May be Made.

-- (1) A person who is severely mentally disabled and in need of treatment, as defined in section 301(a), may be made subject to court

- ordered involuntary treatment upon a determination of clear and present danger under section 301(b)(1) (serious bodily harm to others), or section 301(b)(2)(i) (inability to care for himself, creating a danger of death or serious harm to himself), or 301(b)(2)(ii) (attempted suicide), or 301(b)(2)(iii) (self

mutilation).
(2) Where a petition is filed for a person already subject to involuntary treatment, it shall be sufficient to represent, and upon hearing to reestabli sh, that the conduct originally required by section 301 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.

§ 7305. Additional periods of court
- ordered involuntary treatment
(a) At the expiration of a period of court

- ordered involuntary treatment under section 304(g) or this section, the court may order treatment for an additional period upon the application of the county administrator or the director of the facility in which the person is receiving treatment. Such order shall be entered upon hearing on findings as required by sections 304 (a) and (b), and the further finding of a need for continuing involuntary treatment as shown by conduct during the person’s most recent period of court

- ordered treatment. The additionalJ

- A34045

- 15

- 5

- period of involuntary treatment shall not exceed 180 days; provided th at persons meeting the criteria of section 304(g)(2) may be subject to an additional period of up to one year of involuntary treatment. A person found dangerous to himself under section 301(b)(2)(i), (ii) or (iii) shall be subject to an additional period o f involuntary full

time inpatient treatment only if he has first been released to a less restrictive alternative. This limitation shall not apply where, upon application made by the county administrator or facility director, it is determined by a judge or mental health review officer that such release would not be in the person's best interest.
50 P.S. § 7305 (internal footnote omitted).
In order for a person to be committed to an extended period of

treatment:

it is not necessary to show that the patient committed an overt act within 30 days of the hearing. It is necessary however for the court to find that within the patient’s most recent period of institutionalization, the patient’s conduct demonstrated the need for continuing involuntary treatment, Sect ion 7305(a); i.e. his condition continues to evidence a clear and present danger to himself or others, Section 7304(a).
Commonwealth v. Romett , 538 A.2d 1339, 1341 42 (Pa.Super.1988).

“It is well

- settled that involuntary civil commitment of mentally ill

pe rsons constitutes deprivation of liberty and may be accomplished only in
accordance with due process protections.” In re R.D. , 739 A.2d 548, 554
(Pa.Super.1999) (quoting In re Hutchinson , 454 A.2d 1008, 1010
(Pa.1982)). “The appropriate standard of proof for certification of extended
involuntary treatment is clear and convincing evidence”. In re Hancock , 719 A.2d 1053, 1056

- 57 (Pa.Super.1998). “Requiring clear and convincingJ

- A34045

- 15

- 6

-

evidence that an individual represents a clear and present danger to himself

or others places the burden squarely on the facility or individual attempting
to commit the individual involuntarily.” Id.
The trial court considered the clear and convincing evidence standard

and reasoned:

In this case, these standards were satisfied by testimony of Dr. Carol Eidsvoog, M.D. a staff psychiatrist at Rockview Mental Health Unit who was [Appellant’s] treating physician. She testified that [Appellant] suffers from anorexia nervosa, binging and purging type. He posed a danger to himself by bin ging and purging because he had binged and purged to the point of suffering severe electrolyte abnormalities, dehydration, contraction alkalosis, and medical problems. The contraction alkalosis improved but was still abnormal. He had not reached the target weight the medical doctors sought. He was unable to provide for his own basic needs. [Appellant] was doing better and was developing self

- distraction techniques after eating to avoid purging but could not do so by himself and needed help by staff to avoi d purging. Without care and assistance there was a reasonable probability of death, disability or serious physical debilitation within 30 days especially with his physical exam abnormalities and lab abnormalities at admission. He has suffered some permanen t physical deficits from his history of anorexia nervosa. He was prescribed Remeron for sleep difficulties, vitamin D, and iron supplements. Dr. Eidsvoog sought a Section 304 commitment to keep working therapeutically to help him to avoid purging after mea ls and to be less restrictive in his food intake. She also planned that he would receive cognitive therapy to deal with stress and control issues. She stated inpatient treatment was the less restrictive environment for him to receive the necessary treatmen t.
When [Appellant] was ordered to undergo mental health treatment under Section 303, he weighed 97 pounds at 5’11”. It was clear to this [c]ourt that [Appellant] was still in need of involuntary mental health treatment for hisJ

- A34045

- 15

- 7

- anorexia nervosa and witho ut the treatment he had a reasonable probability of death, disability or serious physical debilitation within 30 days. He was unable to provide for his basic need of food/nutrition which was demonstrated by the fact that his labs remained abnormal, he stil l had contraction alkalosis, he still needed the assistance from staff to avoid purging, and he had not reached his target weight. This [c]ourt does not agree with [Appellant] that the evidence established that unforced medical attention was readily availa ble to achieve the treatment objectives as the therapies recommended were not available outside of the mental health unit.
Trial Court Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, filed August 17, 2015, at 2

- 3.
Based on our review of the record, we conclude the trial cour t properly
certified Appellant’s continued involuntary treatment under Section 7304
based on sufficient evidence of a clear and present danger he presented to

himself. See 50 P.S.§ 7304(a)(2). Accordingly, we affirm.

Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 1/6/2016