In the Matter of the Civil Commiment of T.K. v. Department of Veterans Affairs, Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center ( 2014 )

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before Apr 03 2014, 5:45 am
any court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
JOEL M. SCHUMM CHADWICK C. DURAN
Indianapolis, Indiana Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL )
COMMITMENT OF T.K., )
)
Appellant-Respondent, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A02-1310-MH-878
)
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, )
RICHARD L. ROUDEBUSH VA MEDICAL )
CENTER, )
)
Appellee-Petitioner. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Gerald S. Zore, Judge
Cause No. 49D08-9906-MH-582
April 3, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BAILEY, Judge
On rehearing, T.K. argues that this Court’s memorandum decision contains a factual
error that is material to the outcome of the case. He is mistaken. In our Statement of the
Facts, we stated that the VA Medical Center’s Application for Emergency Detention of
Mentally Ill and Dangerous Person alleged that T.K. threatened to kill his ex-wife’s husband
and children. In our Discussion of the Issues section of the decision, we stated that T.K.
threatened to kill his ex-wife. T.K. is correct that this is a factual misstatement because he
threatened to kill his ex-wife’s husband and children and not his ex-wife. However, this
factual error is not material to the outcome of the case. If we remove this misstatement from
our analysis, the remaining evidence supports T.K.’s involuntary commitment. Once this
statement is removed, T.K.’s petition raises no question other than the sufficiency of the
evidence, which has a well-established standard that guides us on appellate review and was
fully considered and discussed by this court in our original decision. We advise counsel that
a “petition whose success depends upon our ignoring the constraints placed upon us has no
chance of success.” Maberry v. State, 748 N.E.2d 881, 886 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
Accordingly, we grant rehearing for purposes of correction and clarification but deny
relief.
FRIEDLANDER, J., and KIRSCH, J., concur.
2