Commitment of N.B. v. Indiana University Health Bloomington Hospital (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 28 2019, 6:17 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Stuart K. Baggerly James L. Whitlatch
Bloomington, Indiana Kathryn E. DeWeese
Bloomington, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Commitment of N.B., October 28, 2019
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-MH-1162
v. Appeal from the Monroe Circuit
Court
Indiana University Health The Honorable Stephen R. Galvin,
Bloomington Hospital, Judge
Appellee-Petitioner, Trial Court Cause No.
53C07-1905-MH-160
Tavitas, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-1162 | October 28, 2019 Page 1 of 8
Case Summary
[1] N.B. appeals the trial court’s grant of Indiana University Health Bloomington
Hospital’s (“IU Hospital”) petition for involuntary commitment and the trial
court’s forced medication order. We dismiss.
Issue
[2] N.B. raises two issues; however, we address one issue we find to be dispositive,
which is whether N.B.’s commitment order is moot.
Facts
[3] On May 8, 2019, 1 IU Hospital filed an application for emergency detention of
N.B., a mentally ill person, and a petition for involuntary commitment. The
petition stated that N.B. suffered from schizophrenia. The physician’s
emergency statement, filed by Dr. Jessica Mayer, stated that N.B. “has a history
of assaulting mother when not under treatment, has been followed by
psychiatry since 12/4/2018 [and] has been deteriorating.” Appellant’s App.
Vol. II p. 8. Dr. Mayer based her statement on personal observations, her
examination of N.B., an ongoing professional relationship with N.B., and
information provided by N.B.’s parents. The petition and supporting
documents also stated that N.B. physically assaulted his mother and attempted
1
The application also has a file stamp of May 1, 2019; however, because the chronological case summary
(“CCS”) uses May 8, 2019, as the date the filing was opened, we will use that date.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-1162 | October 28, 2019 Page 2 of 8
to physically assault his father and that N.B. has “zero insight into his illness or
the need for medications.” Id. at 15.
[4] The same day, on May 8, 2019, the trial court held a hearing; N.B. appeared by
counsel, and N.B.’s parents joined the hearing by telephone. Dr. Gregory
Sidell, a certified psychiatrist, testified at the hearing that N.B. was admitted to
IU Hospital after staff received a phone call from another hospital where N.B.
was transported “after [N.B.’s] outpatient psychiatrist had become alarmed at
[N.B.’s] behaviors.” Tr. Vol. II p. 7. Accordingly, the psychiatrist filed
paperwork for a seventy-two-hour hold. Dr. Sidell also testified that his
impression is that N.B. suffers from schizophrenia and “has shown extremely
tangential thought process, very hard to follow, has clearly been responding to
internal stimuli, [and] has been talking to the air in his room when he doesn’t
think he is being observed.” Id. Dr. Sidell acknowledged that N.B. “does have
a pretty high intelligence and [ ] is able to assimilate symptoms and hide the
symptoms but he has no insight into his psychotic illness and need for
medications.” Id. at 7-8.
[5] With regard to N.B.’s medication, Dr. Sidell testified that N.B. took one dose of
an anti-psychotic medication called Invega and “actually seemed somewhat
improved the next day, but since then [N.B.] has made it clear that he is not
willing to take any type of anti-psychotic medications.” Id. at 8. Accordingly,
Dr. Sidell requested a forced medication order for both Invega Sustenna and
Abilify Maintena. Dr. Sidell also acknowledged that N.B. requested “a long list
of all of the various different anti-psychotic medications that are available from
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-1162 | October 28, 2019 Page 3 of 8
the pharmacy and at one point, [N.B.] did say that he would be willing to take
Haldol but [Dr. Sidell] talked to him about the side effects of Haldol and [N.B.]
decided against that one.” Id. at 9. Dr. Sidell testified that the benefits of the
medications outweigh the risks presented by the side effects of the medications.
[6] Dr. Sidell also testified that N.B. has previously been on court-ordered mental
health diversion and previously was on a seventy-two hour hold in California
after an admitting diagnosis of bi-polar disorder. Dr. Sidell determined
commitment was necessary on the basis that N.B. was a danger to himself and
others. Dr. Sidell testified:
Previously [N.B.] attacked his mother physically, spent 40 days
in (inaudible) County Jail in California. That was in 2017. In
2018, he was a student at [a school in California] and currently is
on a leave of absence from [the school] and the paperwork from
the [school], from 2018, indicates that at that point in time he
had acute thoughts of self-harm, thought about using a tie to
hang himself. His father has reported to me that in recent weeks,
[N.B.] has been very isolative at home, in his room, making
guttural animal noises behind the door. His father went in to see,
[to] make sure that [N.B.] was okay several weeks ago, and
[N.B.] attempted to hit his father in the head with a dumbbell.
And then more recently, the father reported that [N.B.] assumed
an aggressive posture towards his father and the father was afraid
that [N.B.] might attack him physically.
Id. at 11-12.
[7] N.B.’s father testified by telephone and said that he has “seen [N.B.] steadily
become more confused and isolated and sometimes aggressive.” Id.at 16.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-1162 | October 28, 2019 Page 4 of 8
Moreover, N.B.’s father testified that N.B. swung a barbell at him and “has
been physically forward aggressive as if going to hit [him].” Id. The incident
occurred “a few weeks ago,” but N.B.’s father was not exactly sure how long
ago. Id. N.B.’s father also recounted that N.B. “makes angry argumentative
noises by himself in his room and also noises that are not identifiable
particularly as human speech, a screeching noise[].” Id. at 17. According to
N.B.’s father, N.B.’s medical leave from school in California was due to N.B.
“missing classes, failing in his schoolwork, isolating in his dormitory room, and
when [N.B.] would show up to class they suggested that he was going in his
pajamas. . . . Unable to manage his life.” Id. N.B.’s father opined that the “best
thing” for N.B. would be for N.B. to take medication and be committed for
treatment at a health facility. Id. at 18.
[8] Additionally, N.B.’s mother testified by telephone that N.B. has hit her; that
she occasionally has to speak to N.B. “very forcefully” to “bring him back to [ ]
reality”; and that N.B. talks to himself and makes animal noises. Id. at 20.
N.B. also testified and stated that he was under a lot of stress, particularly while
he was in law school in California, because it was a “religious school.” Id. at
23. N.B. also acknowledged an incident occurred with his mother, but now
N.B. is complying with requirements the court set forth as a result of this
incident.
[9] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court took the matter under
advisement. On May 8, 2019, the trial court entered an order of commitment
and found that N.B. suffered from “schizophrenia, a mental illness as defined in
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-1162 | October 28, 2019 Page 5 of 8
IC 12-7-2-130(1),” and that N.B. is dangerous to others “as defined in IC 12-7-
2-53.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 4. The trial court’s order of commitment
required N.B. to be committed for “a temporary period not to exceed ninety
(90) days.” Id. The trial court’s order also granted IU Hospital with “an order
to treat with the following medication, unless [N.B.] does not specifically
benefit from these medications: Invega Sustenna or Abilify Maintena.” Id. at 5.
Analysis
[10] N.B. asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his commitment.
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.
Civil Commitment of T.K. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 27 N.E.3d 271, 273 (Ind.
2015) (quotations and citations omitted).
[11] Here, we are faced with the issue of mootness, as N.B.’s “temporary period [of
commitment] not to exceed ninety (90) days,” issued on May 8, 2019, has
lapsed. Id. at 4. See also Ind. Code § 12-26-6-1 (“An individual who is alleged
to be mentally ill and either dangerous or gravely disabled may be committed to
a facility for not more than ninety (90) days under this chapter.”). Our
Supreme Court has held in T.W. v. St. Vincent Hospital and Health Care Center,
Inc., 121 N.E.3d 1039, 1042 (Ind. 2019):
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-1162 | October 28, 2019 Page 6 of 8
The long-standing rule in Indiana courts has been that a case is
deemed moot when no effective relief can be rendered to the
parties before the court. When the controversy at issue has been
ended or settled, or somehow disposed of so as to render it
unnecessary to decide the question involved, the case will be
dismissed. But 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.
(internal quotations and citations omitted).
[12] T.W. involved another issue of great public importance, namely, whether a
court lacked authority to enter orders of civil commitment. Still, in T.W., our
Supreme Court held, “[u]nder these circumstances, though, where the orders
concern periods that have expired, remanding those orders to the trial court for
its review serves no apparent purpose.” T.W., 121 N.E.3d at 1042. Here, the
trial court’s order for the temporary involuntary commitment, as well as the
forced medication order, terminated after the ninety-day commitment period.
Accordingly, we are unable to provide relief to N.B. 2 Pursuant to T.W., when
commitment orders have expired, the issue on appeal regarding the
commitment is moot.
2
This Court has “routinely consider[ed] the merits of appeals brought by persons alleging insufficient
evidence to support involuntary commitments.” C.J. v. State, 74 N.E.3d 572, 575 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). With
our Supreme Court’s recent opinion in T.W., however, we are careful to consider the merits of moot
involuntary commitments only when there is an issue of great public importance. We do not find an issue of
great public importance based on the facts before us here.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-1162 | October 28, 2019 Page 7 of 8
Conclusion
[13] N.B.’s involuntary commitment orders are moot; therefore, we dismiss the
appeal as moot.
[14] Dismissed.
Brown, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-1162 | October 28, 2019 Page 8 of 8