In the Matter of the Commitment of M.W. v. Madison State Hospital (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),                                            FILED
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be                                        Dec 06 2017, 9:07 am
    regarded as precedent or cited before any                                         CLERK
    court except for the purpose of establishing                                  Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    and Tax Court
    the defense of res judicata, collateral
    estoppel, or the law of the case.
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                  ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Ernest P. Galos                                         Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
    Public Defender                                         Attorney General of Indiana
    South Bend, Indiana
    Frances Barrow
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    In the Matter of the                                    December 6, 2017
    Commitment of M.W.,                                     Court of Appeals Case No.
    Appellant-Respondent,                                   71A03-1706-MH-1449
    Appeal from the St. Joseph
    v.                                              Superior Court
    The Honorable Margot F. Reagan,
    Madison State Hospital,                                 Judge
    Appellee-Petitioner.                                    Trial Court Cause No.
    71D07-0908-MH-196
    Bradford, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1706-MH-1449 December 6, 2017          Page 1 of 11
    Case Summary
    [1]   Appellant-Respondent M.W. is a fifty-two year old man with a very long
    history of psychiatric illness and commitments. M.W. has been a patient at
    Appellee-Petitioner Madison State Hospital on a continual basis since 2014
    when he was committed following an emergency detention. M.W.’s diagnosis
    is that he suffers from schizoaffective disorder.
    [2]   M.W.’s commitment has been reviewed periodically since 2014. During the
    most recent review of M.W.’s commitment, a staff psychiatrist stated that if
    M.W. does not stay on his medication, he is gravely disabled. In the past when
    M.W. has been released, he promptly stopped taking his medication. The
    psychiatrist further testified that prior to M.W.’s most recent hospitalization, he
    was not able to care for himself or provide food for himself and had very poor
    hygiene. After the hearing, the trial court found M.W. to be mentally ill and
    gravely disabled and ordered a continued commitment to Madison State
    Hospital. M.W. contends that Madison State Hospital failed to establish that
    he was gravely disabled. Because we disagree, we affirm.
    Facts and Procedural History
    [3]   On August 14, 2009, M.W. was admitted to the Madison State Hospital in
    South Bend, Indiana, after a doctor at the hospital filed an application for
    emergency detention of a mentally-ill person. In the application, the doctor
    indicated that M.W. had not been seen by anyone for a week, he refused to
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1706-MH-1449 December 6, 2017   Page 2 of 11
    answer his door, he was not taking his psychiatric and high blood pressure
    medications, and it was unknown if he was eating or showering. The doctor
    further indicated that M.W. would “continue to decompensate both mentally
    and physically” if he did not take his medications. App. Vol. III p. 20.
    [4]   On August 25, 2009, the trial court entered an order of regular commitment1
    following emergency detention. The order found M.W. to be suffering from a
    psychiatric disorder and gravely disabled and directed him to be committed to
    the Logansport State Hospital.
    [5]   On August 18, 2010, M.W. filed a request for a hearing for review or dismissal
    of his commitment, and the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on
    September 27, 2010. On September 30, 2010, the trial court entered an order
    that continued M.W.’s commitment to Logansport State Hospital. The trial
    court also made the following findings:
    In court [M.W.] testified under oath that his parents, the police
    officer, the neighbor, the doctor and the Adult Protective Services
    Investigator are “liars” and are “sick”. He also insisted that he
    would not take his medication if he was discharged. He then
    qualified that statement by stating he would take his medicine if
    the court ordered him to do so. In addition to [M.W.]’s
    prescribed psychiatric medication, he is also required to take
    medication for high blood pressure and high cholesterol, but he
    also refuses to take medicine for medical conditions. The
    1
    In Indiana, an adult person may be civilly committed either voluntarily or involuntarily. Involuntary civil
    commitment may occur under four circumstances if certain statutorily regulated conditions are satisfied,
    including “Regular Commitment” for an indefinite period of time that may exceed 90 days pursuant to
    Indiana Code chapter 12-26-7.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1706-MH-1449 December 6, 2017             Page 3 of 11
    testimony showed that [M.W.] does not live in reality and that he
    must be supervised. All witnesses felt strongly that he cannot
    care for himself. Photographs of his apartment when he was not
    hospitalized were taken before he was committed in August of
    2009. The apartment was littered with old food, the living space
    appeared extremely unsanitary, there were excessive amounts of
    mold, the bathtub and sink were clogged with rancid water (in
    court [M.W.] indicated that he uses the bathroom sink because
    the kitchen sink is clogged). He would barricade himself inside
    the house to keep out aliens, among others. According to his
    mother, he has turned burners and the oven on and left them on
    during the heat of summer. On one occasion he threw a cat onto
    the pavement, killing it. He nailed tea bags to the living room
    wall to disperse the effects of radiation. He exposed himself on
    several occasions. He called 911 on various occasions making
    illogical statements, and he damaged his apartment by pulling
    paneling off the walls, among other things. When viewing a
    photo with the paneling ripped off of the wall, he stated that there
    was great artwork on the other side of the paneling. His
    refrigerator appeared to be filled with putrid food and in general
    the photos supported testimony that his apartment was
    uninhabitable.
    Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 191–92. The trial court further noted that “[s]adly,
    over the last 20 years or so there has been a pattern of commitments for
    psychiatric treatment (more than twenty admissions) and whenever discharged,
    the behavior would always cause him to be recommitted.” Appellant’s App. p.
    192.
    [6]   On or about December 15, 2010, M.W. was transferred from Logansport State
    Hospital to Richmond State Hospital. Richmond State Hospital filed a periodic
    report that same day. The report concluded that, among other things, M.W.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1706-MH-1449 December 6, 2017   Page 4 of 11
    required supervision with involuntary medication administration order in order
    to prevent decompensation.
    [7]   The trial court continued M.W.’s commitment to Richmond State Hospital
    without a hearing on August 26, 2011. On September 15, 2011, M.W. filed
    another request for a hearing to review or dismiss the commitment. An
    evidentiary hearing was held on October 18, 2011. The trial court entered an
    order that continued M.W.’s commitment that same day finding that he
    suffered from a psychiatric disorder, was dangerous to himself, and was gravely
    disabled. On October 17, 2012, Richmond State Hospital filed a notification of
    discharge, which indicated that M.W.’s commitment was being transferred to
    Oaklawn Center with his discharge address being Metcalfe House in South
    Bend.
    [8]   On August 30, 2013, M.W. was admitted to Memorial Epworth Hospital in
    South Bend. The hospital submitted a periodic report on October 1, 2013,
    which said M.W. was schizophrenic, delusional, paranoid, a threat to animals,
    and sexually inappropriate. The report also indicated that M.W. placed himself
    in dangerous situations and could not provide for himself. The trial court
    entered an order to continue his commitment without a hearing that same day.
    On October 7, 2013, the trial court issued an order transferring M.W. to
    Madison State Hospital. On October 8, 2013, the trial court issued an amended
    order of regular commitment and found M.W. to be a danger to others and
    gravely disabled.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1706-MH-1449 December 6, 2017   Page 5 of 11
    [9]    On April 17, 2014, Madison State Hospital requested the transfer of M.W.’s
    commitment to Oaklawn. On April 23, 2014, M.W. was discharged from
    Madison State Hospital and placed at Oaklawn. M.W.’s discharge instructions
    focused on his needing to stay on his medication. However, M.W. refused to
    sign the discharge form.
    [10]   In July of 2014, M.W. escaped from Oaklawn, and on July 18, 2014, the trial
    court ordered his apprehension and return. Oaklawn filed a periodic report on
    October 14, 2014, which concluded that M.W. was chronically ill, a danger to
    himself and others, and gravely disabled. On October 22, 2014, a doctor with
    Memorial Epworth Hospital requested a hearing to change M.W.’s
    commitment from outpatient to regular patient because he was not complying
    with treatment and was increasingly paranoid and aggressive. A doctor at
    Oaklawn reported that M.W. refused medication and psychiatric treatment, set
    fire to a phone book, beat up his housemate, threatened his neighbors, and
    believed people were watching him through mirrors. On October 28, 2014, the
    trial court entered an order of regular commitment following emergency
    detention and directed that M.W. be committed to any available state hospital.
    M.W. was transported to Madison State Hospital on November 24, 2014.
    [11]   On October 14, 2015, Madison State Hospital filed a periodic report in which it
    concluded that M.W. suffered from schizophrenia, was dangerous to others, he
    was gravely disabled, and had substantially impaired judgment. The trial court
    continued M.W.’s commitment without a hearing that same day.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1706-MH-1449 December 6, 2017   Page 6 of 11
    [12]   On October 21, 2016, the trial court continued M.W.’s commitment again due
    to concerns raised in the periodic report. On December 28, 2016, M.W.
    requested another hearing for the review or dismissal of his commitment. The
    hearing was conducted on May 31, 2017. Gwen Heaton, a psychiatrist from
    Madison State Hospital who had been treating M.W. since 2013, testified at the
    hearing from the hospital. Dr. Heaton testified that M.W. needed to go to a
    locked facility to ensure that he stayed there and took his medication if he was
    discharged. A locked facility is very different from a hospital because patients
    are able to set their own routines and go on outings. Such facilities do not force
    the patients to take their medication but encourage them to do so.
    [13]   Dr. Heaton further opined that “[i]f he does not stay on the medication, he’s
    gravely disabled. He, prior to the hospitalization, was not able to take care of
    himself, provide food for himself. His hygiene was extremely poor. Adult
    Protective Services got involved because of concerns about his safety.” Tr. Vol.
    II p. 13. If M.W. took his medication, he would be capable of caring for
    himself. Without the medication, M.W. could be dangerous to other people.
    When the trial court judge asked M.W. if he would take his medication if he
    were released from the hospital, M.W. initially said he would take the
    medication if he had to. M.W., however, went on to say “I see no reason for
    me to have to take meds. And I’ve got everything going for me, I see no reason
    to agree to it. I am not agreeable to it, and that’s against my rights and that is
    my answer.” Tr. Vol. II pp. 28–29. Following the hearing, the trial court
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1706-MH-1449 December 6, 2017   Page 7 of 11
    entered an order continuing M.W.’s regular commitment, finding that M.W.
    was mentally ill and gravely disabled.
    Discussion and Decision
    Whether M.W.’s Commitment is Supported by Sufficient
    Evidence
    [14]   M.W. contends that the trial court’s determination that he was mentally ill,
    gravely disabled, and required continued commitment to Madison State
    Hospital was not supported by clear and convincing evidence.
    To obtain an involuntary regular commitment of an individual, a
    “petitioner is required to prove by clear and convincing evidence
    that: (1) the individual is mentally ill and either dangerous or
    gravely disabled; and (2) detention or commitment of that
    individual is appropriate.” 
    Ind. Code § 12-26-2-5
    (e) (2012).
    ….
    “[T]he purpose of civil commitment proceedings is dual: to
    protect the public and to ensure the rights of the person whose
    liberty is at stake.” In re Commitment of Roberts, 
    723 N.E.2d 474
    ,
    476 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. not sought.… To satisfy the
    requirements of due process, the facts justifying an involuntary
    commitment must be shown “by clear and convincing evidence
    …. [which] not only communicates the relative importance our
    legal system attaches to a decision ordering an involuntary
    commitment, but … also has the function of reducing the chance
    of inappropriate commitments.” Commitment of J.B. v. Midtown
    Mental Health Ctr., 
    581 N.E.2d 448
    , 450 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991)
    (citations omitted), trans. denied.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1706-MH-1449 December 6, 2017   Page 8 of 11
    In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a
    determination made under the statutory requirement of clear and
    convincing evidence, an appellate court 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.”
    Bud Wolf Chevrolet, Inc. v. Robertson, 
    519 N.E.2d 135
    , 137 (Ind.
    1988).
    Civil Commitment of T.K. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 
    27 N.E.3d 271
    , 273–74 (Ind.
    2015) (footnote omitted, first and second ellipses added).
    [15]   M.W. does not contest the trial court’s conclusion that he suffers from a mental
    illness. M.W. does, however, contest the trial court’s finding that he was
    gravely disabled as defined in Indiana Code section 12-7-2-96:
    “Gravely disabled”, for purposes of IC 12-26, 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 obvious deterioration
    of that individual’s judgment, reasoning, or behavior that
    results in the individual’s inability to function independently.
    [16]   “As we have often noted, 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 is unable to provide for his basic
    needs or that his judgment, reasoning, or behavior is so impaired or
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1706-MH-1449 December 6, 2017   Page 9 of 11
    deteriorated that it results in his inability to function independently.” Civil
    Commitment of W.S. v. Eskenazi Health, Midtown Cmty. Mental Health, 
    23 N.E.3d 29
    , 34 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
    [17]   The evidence most favorable to the trial court’s determination that M.W. is
    gravely disabled indicates that he has consistently been diagnosed with
    schizophrenia or paranoid schizophrenia and has been the subject of numerous
    prior mental health commitments. There is also evidence that M.W.’s refusal
    to take medication outside of a structured environment and inability to function
    independently has been a problem since at least 2010. The last two times
    doctors have tried to treat M.W. through outpatient treatment have ended
    badly. The first time ended with M.W. being admitted to an acute care
    hospital. The second time M.W. was being treated through outpatient
    treatment he escaped from a group home. Finally, Dr. Heaton testified that
    M.W. is gravely disabled if he does not stay on his medication.
    [18]   The only evidence supporting M.W.’s claim that he is not gravely disabled was
    his own testimony at the May 31, 2017, hearing in which he said he would take
    his medication if there was a court order to that effect. This testimony,
    however, was inconsistent with his own statements that he did not believe that
    he required medication. Moreover, M.W. has a history of not taking his
    medication after being released from the hospital. In the end, M.W.’s
    arguments are merely a request for us to reweigh the evidence which we will
    not do. Commitment of B.J. v. Eskenazi Hosp./Midtown CMHC, 
    67 N.E.3d 1034
    ,
    1038 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). The Madison State Hospital established by clear
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1706-MH-1449 December 6, 2017   Page 10 of 11
    and convincing evidence that M.W. is mentally ill and gravely disabled
    pursuant to Indiana Code subsection 12-7-2-96(1).
    [19]   The judgement of the trial court is affirmed.
    Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1706-MH-1449 December 6, 2017   Page 11 of 11
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 71A03-1706-MH-1449

Filed Date: 12/6/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/6/2017