In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of V.H. v. St. Vincent Hospital & Health Care Center, Inc., d/b/a St. Vincent Stress Center (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 13 2017, 6:05 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Darren Bedwell Kimberly E. Schroder
Indianapolis, Indiana Andrew B. Howk
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of the Civil July 13, 2017
Commitment of V.H., Court of Appeals Case No.
Appellant-Respondent, 49A05-1701-MH-152
Appeal from the Marion Superior
v. Court
The Honorable Steven Eichholtz,
St. Vincent Hospital & Health Judge
Care Center, Inc., d/b/a St. Trial Court Cause No.
Vincent Stress Center, 49D08-1612-MH-45204
Appellee-Petitioner
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1701-MH-152 | July 13, 2017 Page 1 of 5
[1] V.H. has suffered with major depression for a number of years and has
attempted suicide on at least eight occasions. Her most recent attempt at age
twenty-one, as well as several other attempts, involved overdosing on an over-
the-counter painkiller. This resulted in the trial court granting a petition for
involuntary commitment of V.H. filed by St. Vincent Hospital & Health Care
Center, Inc, d/b/a St. Vincent Stress Center (St. Vincent). On appeal, V.H.
challenges one of the special conditions imposed by the trial court upon her
once she attains outpatient status. Specifically, the court ordered her not to use
alcohol or drugs unless prescribed by a physician, and V.H. contends that
banning her from alcohol bore no reasonable relationship to her treatment.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] On or about December 23, 2016, V.H. was admitted to St. Vincent suffering
from a potentially fatal overdose of Tylenol. She was treated with N-
acetylcysteine to prevent the Tylenol from destroying her liver and causing
death. V.H. had a history of hospitalizations following similar suicide attempts
and had been released from inpatient treatment just days before this most recent
attempt. The majority of V.H.’s suicide attempts have involved Tylenol.
[4] St. Vincent began this action by filing an application with the trial court for the
emergency detention of V.H. The trial court authorized the continued
detention of V.H. and set the matter for a commitment hearing on January 3,
2017. At the contested commitment hearing, V.H. admitted that she had
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1701-MH-152 | July 13, 2017 Page 2 of 5
attempted suicide five times in 2016 and at least three prior attempts, all while
receiving out-patient care. Her treating physician during V.H.’s multiple
admissions to St Vincent over the last two years testified that V.H. suffers from
major depression and borderline personality disorder. He opined that if V.H. is
not admitted to a state hospital, “there’s a good chance she is going to be dead”.
Transcript at 7.
[5] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court ordered the regular commitment
of V.H. The court also ordered that V.H. abide by several special conditions
upon attaining outpatient status. Relevant here, V.H. was ordered to “not use
alcohol or drugs other than those prescribed by a physician.” Id. at 34.
[6] On appeal, V.H. asks that we vacate the portion of this special condition related
to alcohol use. Additional facts will be provided below as needed.
Discussion & Decision
[7] A trial court may place conditions on an involuntarily committed individual
upon her release as an outpatient. See Commitment of M.M. v. Clarian Health
Partners, 826 N.E.2d 90, 99 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied; Golub v. Giles, 814
N.E.2d 1034, 1041 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Ind. Code § 12-26-14-3), trans.
denied. Such conditions, however, must be supported by evidence in the record
and reasonably designed to protect the individual and the general public.
Commitment of M.M., 826 N.E.2d at 99.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1701-MH-152 | July 13, 2017 Page 3 of 5
[8] In Commitment of M.M., we struck from the order of commitment a special
condition prohibiting the use of alcohol or drugs because “the record [was]
devoid of any evidence showing M.M. used or abused alcohol or drugs.” Id.
We noted that the subject of alcohol or drug use was never raised during the
commitment hearing. Thus, we concluded that there was “no evidence in the
record to suggest that such a prohibition bears any relationship to M.M.’s
treatment or the protection of the public”. Id.
[9] We reached the same conclusion in Golub where the record was “devoid of any
evidence showing that Golub used or abused alcohol or drugs.” Golub, 814
N.E.2d at 1041. “[T]he subject of alcohol and drug use was not at issue at any
time during the hearing” and the trial court did not mention such a condition at
the hearing. Id. The first mention of the special condition was in the trial
court’s final order of commitment. Id.
[10] Unlike in Golub and Commitment of M.M., the record in this case is replete with
evidence that V.H. misused substances, specifically Tylenol, as a result of her
major depressive and borderline personality disorders. In a “very short period
of time” prior to the instant commitment, V.H. had two serious suicide
attempts involving potentially fatal overdoses of Tylenol. Transcript at 10. V.H.
had made many other attempts to end her life, most of which involved the use
of the same easily obtainable, over-the-counter pain medication. With these
attempts, V.H. risked destroying her liver and either dying or needing a liver
transplant.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1701-MH-152 | July 13, 2017 Page 4 of 5
[11] Under these circumstances, we conclude that the condition prohibiting V.H.
from using alcohol or drugs (unless prescribed by a physician) is supported by
evidence in the record and is reasonably related to her treatment. Further, we
reject V.H.’s invitation for us to require the trial court to parse which substances
she may or may not use during outpatient treatment.1
[12] Judgment affirmed.
Kirsch, J. and Mathias, J., concur.
1
We agree with the State that this is a dangerous argument. Although she has used Tylenol in her many past
suicide attempts, V.H. could certainly make a similar attempt with a different drug, alcohol, or a combination
of substances.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1701-MH-152 | July 13, 2017 Page 5 of 5