Court Opinion

ID: 9897438
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:11:33.910488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:46.583255
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                     Mar 29 2023, 9:12 am

                                                                         CLERK
                                                                     Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                        Court of Appeals
                                                                          and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Joel M. Schumm                                            Jenny R. Buchheit
Indianapolis, Indiana                                     Sean T. Dewey
                                                          Alexandria H. Pittman
                                                          Ice Miller LLP
                                                          Indianapolis, Indiana

                                           IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Civil                                March 29, 2023
Commitment of: A.O.,                                      Court of Appeals Case No.
Appellant-Respondent,                                     22A-MH-2396
                                                          Appeal from the Marion Superior
        v.                                                Court
                                                          The Honorable Melanie L.
Community Health Network,                                 Kendrick, Magistrate
Inc.,                                                     Trial Court Cause No.
Appellee-Petitioner                                       49D08-2209-MH-33621

                               Opinion by Judge Weissmann
                              Judges Bailey and Brown concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-MH-2396 | March 29, 2023                           Page 1 of 8
      Weissmann, Judge.

[1]   A.O., who has schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, arrived at Community

      Hospital in a delusional and manic state. After an altercation with a hospital

      security officer, she chewed her IV line and began drinking the saline solution

      in it because she was thirsty. The trial court ordered A.O.’s temporary

      commitment, finding A.O. had a mental illness, was gravely disabled, and

      needed custody, care, and treatment for a period not expected to exceed 90

      days.

[2]   A.O. appeals, acknowledging her mental illness but claiming that the court

      erred in finding she was gravely disabled. We conclude the evidence supports

      the court’s judgment and thus affirm.1

      Facts
[3]   A.O. has had schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, for four or five years. She

      also has a history of using illegal drugs, including methamphetamines. Now 25

      years old, A.O. arrived at the Hospital’s emergency room and, while waiting for

      1
        A.O.’s temporary commitment was scheduled to expire December 29, 2022, effectively rendering this
      appeal moot. App. Vol. II, p. 10. As A.O. notes, “Indiana recognizes a public interest exception to the
      mootness doctrine, which may be invoked when the issue involves a question of great public importance
      which is likely to recur.” E.F. v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc., 188 N.E.3d 464, 466 (Ind. 2022)
      (quoting Matter of Tina T., 579 N.E.2d 48, 54 (Ind. 1991)). Because of the fundamental interests at stake in
      civil commitment cases, “review of the issues presented is important, including the nuances of the sufficiency
      of the evidence to support a commitment.” Id. at 467. A.O. contends, and the Hospital does not dispute, that
      this mootness exception should apply here. We agree and apply the exception, as we have in other recent
      temporary commitment cases. See, e.g., In re Commitment of C.M., 191 N.E.3d 278, 280 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022).

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-MH-2396 | March 29, 2023                                 Page 2 of 8
      treatment, became involved in the altercation with a hospital security officer

      over her request for water.

[4]   Upon being seen by an emergency room doctor, A.O. was diagnosed with

      rhabdomyolysis. That condition involves a breakdown in muscles that

      ultimately can cause kidney damage. It often occurs in people with mental

      illnesses after periods of agitation, aggressive pacing, or nonstop walking. A.O.

      told Hospital staff that just before her hospitalization, she had been cleaning her

      grandfather’s home for several hours and had not been sleeping or drinking

      enough water. A.O. also reported calling “ghost busters” to take her to the

      hospital. Tr. Vol. II, p. 6.

[5]   The treatment A.O. received for rhabdomyolysis included an IV with saline

      solution. During this treatment, Hospital staff allegedly denied A.O.’s request

      for water, so A.O. chewed the IV line and drank the saline solution after

      threatening to do so. The psychiatrist who examined A.O. after this incident

      described it as “another episode of severe mania with psychosis.” Id. at 13. The

      Hospital admitted her to its inpatient treatment and sought her temporary

      commitment. After a hearing at which A.O. testified that she would not take

      medication for her mental disorder, the trial court ordered A.O.’s temporary

      commitment. A.O. appeals that judgment.

      Discussion and Decision
[6]   A.O. claims that the Hospital failed to prove that she was gravely disabled, a

      prerequisite to her temporary commitment. When reviewing the sufficiency of

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-MH-2396 | March 29, 2023        Page 3 of 8
      the evidence supporting a civil commitment, we consider only the probative

      evidence and reasonable inferences supporting it, without weighing evidence or

      assessing witness credibility. Civ. Commitment of T.K. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs,

      27 N.E.3d 271, 273 (Ind. 2015). We will affirm if clear and convincing evidence

      supports the trial court’s judgment. Id. Clear and convincing evidence requires

      proof that the existence of a fact is “highly probable.” Matter of Commitment of

      C.N., 116 N.E.3d 544, 547 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

[7]   A.O. does not dispute that she is a person with mental illness. Instead, she

      claims only that the temporary commitment is improper because the Hospital

      failed to prove she was “gravely disabled,” as required by Indiana Code § 12-26-

      2-5(e). That statute allows an involuntary commitment of a patient with mental

      illness only when the petition proves by clear and convincing evidence that: 1)

      the patient is mentally ill and either dangerous or gravely disabled; and 2)

      detention or commitment of that individual is appropriate. I.C. § 12-26-2-5(e).

      The Hospital need only have proven that A.O. was either dangerous or gravely

      disabled; it was not required to prove both elements to carry its burden of proof.

      In the Matter of the Commitment of M.Z. v. Clarian Health Partners, 829 N.E.2d 634,

      637 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). The trial court found only that A.O. was gravely

      disabled and not that she was dangerous.

[8]   In this context, “gravely disabled” means “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

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-MH-2396 | March 29, 2023           Page 4 of 8
       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. A.O. claims the Hospital proved neither of these statutory prongs and

       thus did not establish she was gravely disabled. We disagree and find that clear

       and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s determination that A.O. is

       “gravely disabled.”

[9]    A.O. contends the evidence shows she was handling her mental illness well so

       the Hospital did not prove the second prong of Indiana Code § 12-7-2-96(2)—

       that is, that she has a substantial impairment or an obvious deterioration of her

       judgment, reasoning, or behavior that results in her inability to function

       independently. She points to evidence that she was caring for her bedridden

       grandfather and toddler daughter in her grandfather’s home at the time of her

       hospitalization.

[10]   A.O. suggests the remaining evidence merely showed that she refused to

       recognize her mental illness or take the medication prescribed for her condition.

       As A.O. correctly notes, denial of mental illness and refusal to medicate,

       standing alone, are not enough to establish that she is gravely disabled. See Civ.

       Commitment of T.K., 27 N.E.3d 271, 276 (Ind. 2015).

[11]   But the record contains considerable, additional evidence showing A.O.’s

       inability to function independently due to a substantial impairment or an

       obvious deterioration of her judgment, reasoning, or behavior. A.O. was not

       sleeping or drinking enough water and was hospitalized for a serious illness—

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-MH-2396 | March 29, 2023           Page 5 of 8
       rhabdomyolysis—that may have been linked to excess exertion caused by her

       untreated mental illness. Yet, A.O. did not recognize that she was ill or needed

       the IV treatment, according to Dr. Syed Hasan, the psychiatrist who examined

       A.O. at the Hospital. And rather than accepting the necessary treatment to

       prevent such complications as kidney damage, A.O. interfered with it by

       chewing through an IV tube and drinking the saline solution. Her altercation

       with the Hospital security officer beforehand prompted the Hospital to restrain

       her and left her bruised, according to A.O. Later during her hospitalization, she

       was agitated, not sleeping, and refusing to take any medication.

[12]   A.O. stated she would only accept “natural” treatments for any illness,

       although she also denied being ill. Tr. Vol. II, p. 8. She believed she could “go

       out in [her] garden right now and . . . pick [a] weed that . . . can cure

       turberculosis (sic) and diarrhea[.]” Id. at 21. She contended that her prior

       “mental problems” were caused, rather than alleviated, by the anti-psychotic

       medicine she was prescribed in 2018. Id. A.O. also reported that her mental

       condition improved after she stopped taking that medication and that she

       would not take such prescription medications again.

[13]   Dr. Hasan attributed A.O.’s inability to function independently to both a

       substantial impairment and obvious deterioration of her judgment, reasoning,

       or behavior. He testified that A.O. continues to believe she is God and “owns

       everything” and such “delusional, irrational, nonrealistic thoughts . . . impairs

       (sic) her ability to function.” Id. at 8. According to Dr. Hasan, A.O. could not

       maintain employment, her ability to interact in a social setting was impaired by

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-MH-2396 | March 29, 2023          Page 6 of 8
       her mental illness, and her prognosis was poor without treatment. Id. at 16-17.

       He concluded that A.O. had a “potential for . . . dangerousness there, and

       definitely she’s gravely disabled.” Id. at 9.

[14]   When asked about her statements to Dr. Hasan that she owned the Hospital,

       A.O. responded, “Ok, um, well I remember being in a tomb. I remember the

       beginning of life. I remember my life being put on television.” Id. at 23. She

       later testified that she split herself “into two people, an evil twin and a good

       twin.” Id. at 24. She testified she then split herself “again into four” and “hid

       two of the twins so then one day when [she] was awake, and it was the right

       time [she] would be able to own everything and be able to have world peace.”

       Id. Despite her health problems, A.O. testified she would only undergo

       treatment at a “natural” hospital. Id. at 21.

[15]   This evidence shows A.O.’s lack of insight into her condition and that her

       delusional thoughts had compromised her treatment, judgment, and ability to

       function independently. During her psychotic episode at the Hospital, A.O.

       engaged in violent behavior and, by her account, had been injured. Given all

       this evidence, the Hospital proved by clear and convincing evidence that A.O.

       has “a condition in which [she], as a result of mental illness, is in danger of

       coming to harm because [she]. . . 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(2); see A.S. v. Ind. Univ. Health Bloomington Hosp., 148 N.E.3d 1135 (Ind. Ct.

       App. 2020) (affirming a finding of grave disability where delusional patient

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-MH-2396 | March 29, 2023          Page 7 of 8
       suggested she was Jesus, refused medication, acted inappropriately at the

       hospital, and was threatening toward hospital staff).2

[16]   As A.O. challenges only the trial court’s determination that she was “gravely

       disabled” and clear and convincing evidence supports that determination, we

       affirm the trial court’s judgment.

       Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur.

       2
        A.O. also contends that she is not “gravely disabled” as defined by Indiana Code § 12-7-2-96(1) because the
       Hospital did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that she cannot provide her food, clothing, shelter,
       or other essential human needs. But Indiana Code § 12-7-2-96 is written in the disjunctive. Given that the
       Hospital proved A.O. was “gravely disabled” under Indiana Code § 12-7-2-96(2), we need not address
       whether she was “gravely disabled” under Indiana Code 12-7-2-96(1).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-MH-2396 | March 29, 2023                               Page 8 of 8