In the Matter of the Commitment of J.K., J.K. v. Community Health Network, Inc. (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Apr 20 2020, 9:28 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Valerie K. Boots Jenny R. Buchheit
Darren Bedwell Stephen E. Reynolds
Marion County Public Defender Agency Sean T. Dewey
– Appellate Division Ice Miller, LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of the April 20, 2020
Commitment of J.K., Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-MH-1886
J.K.
Appeal from the Marion Superior
Appellant-Respondent, Court
v. The Honorable Steven R.
Eichholtz, Judge
Community Health Network, The Honorable Melanie Kendrick,
Inc., Magistrate
Appellee-Petitioner. Trial Court Cause No.
49D08-1907-MH-27411
Mathias, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-1886 | April 20, 2020 Page 1 of 7
[1] J.K. appeals the Marion Superior Court’s order temporarily committing him to
Community North Hospital. He argues that the trial court’s finding that he is
gravely disabled as a result of mental illness is not supported by clear and
convincing evidence.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On July 3, 2019, twenty-six-year-old J.K. was observed standing in the middle
of a street with moving traffic. He was aggressive with the police officers who
removed him from the street and transported him to the emergency room at
Community North Hospital (“the Hospital”). Shortly after his admission, the
treating physician filed an application for emergency detention and a
physician’s statement. Dr. Syed Hasan examined J.K. and concluded that J.K.
suffers from schizoaffective disorder, and as a result of his condition, he is
gravely disabled. On July 9, 2019, Dr. Hasan requested that J.K. be temporarily
committed to the Hospital for a period not to exceed ninety days.
[4] At the July 15, 2019, hearing on the petition for temporary commitment, Dr.
Hasan stated that when J.K. was admitted to the hospital, he was nonverbal,
aggressive, and agitated. Throughout J.K.’s hospital stay, Dr. Hasan observed
that J.K. was agitated, confused, responding to internal stimuli, exhibiting odd
behaviors, and denied his history of mental illness despite prior diagnoses and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-1886 | April 20, 2020 Page 2 of 7
hospital admission for schizoaffective disorder. J.K. also refused to take
prescribed medication.
[5] J.K. was homeless and lacked proper hygiene. He also was incapable of
coherent conversation. J.K. exhibits “catatonic features where he has periods of
freezing and pauses, posturing and just bizarre behaviors.” Tr. pp. 8–9. He is
paranoid and suffers from delusions. And his cognition is “pretty impaired.” Tr.
p. 11. He refused food during his hospitalization and spit medication at hospital
staff. He also pretended to take his medication but hid it between his cheek and
teeth and refused to swallow the pill.
[6] J.K. lacks insight to his mental illness and refuses medication. He is not able to
provide himself with food, clothing, shelter or other essential human needs. Dr.
Hasan believes that because of his mental illness, J.K. lacks the ability to
maintain employment and function independently. Tr. p. 10.
[7] Dr. Hasan testified that J.K. presents a substantial risk that he will harm himself
because he exhibits risky behaviors in places where he could get hurt. Tr. p. 12.
J.K. also presents a substantial risk that he will harm others because he has a
history of verbal and physical aggression, including “strangulation towards
others.” Tr. p. 13. J.K. testified that he is not dangerous but he does “get
violent.” Tr. p. 19.
[8] After the hearing, the trial court granted the Hospital’s petition for temporary
commitment after concluding that the Hospital established by clear and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-1886 | April 20, 2020 Page 3 of 7
convincing evidence that J.K. suffers from Schizoaffective Disorder, and as a
result, he is gravely disabled. J.K. now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[9] J.K. appeals the order temporarily committing him to the Hospital and argues
that the trial court’s finding that he is gravely disabled as a result of his mental
illness is not supported by clear and convincing evidence.1
[10] Civil commitment proceedings have two purposes: to protect the public and to
ensure the rights of the person whose liberty is at stake. P.B. v. Evansville State
Hosp., 90 N.E.3d 1199, 1202 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “[S]ince everyone exhibits
some abnormal conduct at one time or another, loss of liberty calls for a
showing that the individual suffers from something more serious than is
demonstrated by idiosyncratic behavior.” T.D. v. Eskenazi Health Midtown Cmty.
Mental Health Ctr., 40 N.E.3d 507, 511 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting In re
Commitment of G.M., 743 N.E.2d 1148, 1151 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)). “Given the
liberty interest at stake, the serious stigma involved, and the adverse social
1
J.K.'s appeal is arguably moot because ninety days have elapsed since the trial court issued its order and
J.K. has likely been released from his involuntary commitment. “When a court is unable to render effective
relief to a party, the case is deemed moot and usually dismissed.” In re Commitment of J.M., 62 N.E.3d 1208,
1210 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (citing In re J.B., 766 N.E.2d 795, 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)). However, “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.” T.W. v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care
Ctr., Inc., 121 N.E.3d 1039, 1042 (Ind. 2019) (citing Matter of Tina T., 579 N.E.2d 48, 54 (Ind. 1991)). “[A]n
involuntary commitment is of great public interest and involves issues which are likely to recur, so we
generally choose to address the merits of such appeals, despite the mootness of the case.” B.D. v. Indiana Univ.
Health Bloomington Hosp., 121 N.E.3d 1044, 1048 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-1886 | April 20, 2020 Page 4 of 7
consequences that accompany such physical confinement, a proceeding for an
involuntary civil commitment is subject to due process requirements.” B.D. v.
Ind. Univ. Health Bloomington Hosp., 121 N.E.3d 1044, 1049 (Ind. Ct. App.
2019). To satisfy due process requirements, the petitioner is required to prove
the facts justifying involuntary commitment by clear and convincing evidence.
Id.[11] “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) (quotation and citation omitted). Requiring this standard of proof
reflects the “importance our legal system attaches to a decision ordering an
involuntary commitment” and reduces the “chance of inappropriate
involuntary commitments.” Civil Commitment of J.B. v. Cmty. Hosp. N., 88
N.E.3d 792, 795 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). When we review the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting an involuntary civil commitment, we will affirm if,
“considering only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting
[the decision], 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).
[12] “There is no constitutional basis for confining a mentally ill person who is not
dangerous and can live safely in freedom.” C.N., 116 N.E.3d at 547. But a court
may order a temporary commitment of not more than ninety days for an
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-1886 | April 20, 2020 Page 5 of 7
individual who is mentally ill and either dangerous or gravely disabled. Ind.
Code § 12-26-6-1.
[13] J.K. does not challenge the trial court’s finding that he suffers from mental
illness. See Ind. Code § 12-7-2-130 (defining mental illness as a psychiatric
disorder that substantially disturbs an individual’s thinking, feeling, or behavior
and impairs the individual's ability to function). Instead, J.K. contends that the
Hospital failed to present sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding
that he is gravely disabled. “Gravely disabled” is defined as
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.
Ind. Code § 12-7-2-96.
[14] J.K. claims his refusal to take medication, “erratic behavior,” and bizarre
thoughts are not clear and convincing evidence of grave disability. See
Appellant’s Br. at 12–13. But this was not the only evidence presented to the
trial court to establish that J.K. was gravely disabled.
[15] Dr. Hasan testified that J.K.’s cognition is “pretty impaired.” Tr. p. 11. He
stated that J.K. is not capable of coherent conversation and is confused. J.K.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-1886 | April 20, 2020 Page 6 of 7
has catatonic periods where he stares into space or responds to internal stimuli.
J.K. is aggressive and admitted that he can be violent. He also exhibits
paranoia.
[16] In addition to refusing medication, J.K. has refused food at the hospital. J.K. is
homeless and has no means of caring for himself. His hygiene is lacking. Dr.
Hasan believes that J.K. is not able to provide himself with food, clothing,
shelter or other essential human needs. Dr. Hasan testified that because of his
mental illness, J.K. lacks the ability to maintain employment and function
independently. Tr. p. 10. J.K. lacks insight and understanding of his mental
illness.
Conclusion
[17] Under these facts and circumstances, we conclude that the trial court’s order
finding that J.K. is gravely disabled is supported by clear and convincing
evidence.
[18] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-1886 | April 20, 2020 Page 7 of 7